My San Felipe Vacation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: on failure it enumerates the reason categories (already booked, minimum-night stay, too many guests, pets not allowed) and states that nearby open dates are suggested, which tells the agent to read the response rather than treat it as a boolean.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: what it does, what happens when it fails, and where to go for price. The most decision-relevant content (single-property scope) is front-loaded and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the right work by characterizing the return (a verdict plus enumerated reasons plus suggested alternate dates). What's left unstated is the response's shape (e.g. whether 'available' is a boolean flag or whether suggestions are date pairs) and error handling for a bad property_id.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (property_id, check_in/check_out, adults, pets, children, language) is already documented in-schema. The description only restates 'specific dates and party size' and hints that pets matter; it adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Check whether ... can be booked') plus a tightly scoped resource: exactly one property, for specific dates and party size. The scope word 'one' and the sibling reference to get_quote let an agent place this against search_properties and get_property_details without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use get_quote for the price' explicitly routes the agent to the correct alternative and implicitly scopes this tool away from pricing. It also lists the failure conditions that make a negative result worth reading. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'use search_properties for multiple properties'), which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the full content inventory (policies, contact info, approximate location) with no output schema to carry it. It does not state what happens for an unknown property_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists. Dense but every item maps to real content an agent would otherwise not know about.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly substitutes a return-content inventory, and annotations cover the safety profile for this idempotent read. Gaps are minor: no error behavior for a missing property_id and no mention of how the language parameter changes the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both property_id ('from search results') and language ('en (default) or es') are already documented in structured data. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, such as whether language affects the returned content of the property details, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full details for one ... rental') and enumerates exactly what the record contains, so an agent knows the payload shape before calling. It explicitly separates itself from get_quote for pricing, though it does not distinguish itself from search_properties or check_availability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the alternative for pricing ('Use get_quote for prices') and, via the schema hint, anchors property_id to search results — a clear retrieval workflow. No explicit when-not or prerequisites beyond that, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing live booking-system pricing, USD currency, itemization, required fees, total due, and refundable deposit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return-value detail. Every sentence provides useful information without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned quote components and currency. It is nearly complete for a quote tool, though it omits any mention of prerequisite property lookup or possible availability/date validation errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already well documented. The description only generally references specific dates and guest count and adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: get an exact, itemized price quote for one named rental. It distinguishes quote retrieval from generic property search or availability, but does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage when a quote is needed for specific dates and guest count. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus check_availability or search_properties, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining property_id from search results.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses that results include live total USD prices for the whole stay, that required fees are included but the refundable security deposit is excluded, how default sorting works, and that unsupported parameters are rejected. These are meaningful behavioral details for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, return values, sort behavior, paging, validation behavior, and alternatives are each covered in a single efficient sentence. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex 18-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search semantics, price return behavior, sorting, paging, and alternatives for related lookups. The schema carries the per-parameter detail, so an agent has enough context to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 18 parameters thoroughly. The description adds only limited extra meaning, mainly default sort behavior and offset-based paging, both of which are also present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource (search vacation rentals), defines the location and availability criteria, and states what is returned. It also distinguishes the tool from get_quote and get_property_details, making its role clear even without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear usage guidance: search by dates and party size, sort with best_fit or price_low, page with offset, and use get_quote or get_property_details for other needs. The main gap is that it never mentions the sibling check_availability, so one relevant alternative is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.