inventory

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It indicates this is an informational retrieval tool through words like 'current' and by listing returned policy data, so calling it appears safe and side-effect-free. Still, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data freshness limitations, or any authentication requirements.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the most important output, price ranges, and then lists the remaining elements efficiently. There is no repetition, filler, or irrelevant detail.

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 and no parameters, the description fully carries the responsibility of explaining what the tool provides. It enumerates all major return elements: price ranges, deposit amount, policy, payment milestones, and reservation link. The tool is simple enough that this list is sufficient for an agent to understand the call's purpose and result.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned content rather than input details.

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 clearly states the resource: current list price ranges per home type, refundable reservation deposit amount and policy, payment milestone schedule, and online reservation link. It is not a tautology and is specific enough to suggest a distinct purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever pricing, deposit, payment schedule, or reservation link info is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, leaving the agent to infer selection from the content list and sibling names.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the returned specification content, but does not disclose edge behavior such as handling of invalid product ids, whether availability data is live/current, or whether the call is strictly read-only.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the return categories. Every phrase carries information, with no filler or redundant wording.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description plus schema cover what is returned and how to supply the argument. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with get_pricing_and_deposit_policy or clarifying the meaning of the availability band, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains the product parameter well, including source and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific operation ('Full specification for one product type/model') and lists the exact content returned: layouts, dimensions, inclusions, amenities, imagery links, and availability band. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pricing_and_deposit_policy and search_inventory.

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?

The description implies use for retrieving a full spec sheet for a specific home type, and the schema references products from search_inventory. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context by stating that only a coarse availability band is exposed and that exact unit counts are not published. This sets accurate expectations about the tool's limitations without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 well-structured sentences deliver the core purpose, output content, and filtering options without wasted words. The caveat about coarse availability is woven in neatly rather than adding clutter.

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 two-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the return content, the granularity of availability, and the available filters. It falls slightly short only because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including the notable studio/0-or-1-bedroom nuance. The description reiterates that filtering is optional but adds little semantic value 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the exact resource: over-water home product types currently offered. It enumerates the returned fields (model name, availability band, size, features, starting price), clearly separating this inventory-browsing tool from pricing, unit-details, and inquiry siblings.

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?

The description implies usage: use this to browse or filter current product types. It states optional filters but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_pricing_and_deposit_policy, get_unit_details, or submit_inquiry, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the side effect ('Registers'), the requirement of consent, the follow-up behavior, and the response type ('neutral acknowledgment'). It does not detail potential duplicates or exact acknowledgment contents, but for a simple submission tool this is adequately transparent.

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 three short sentences (about 30 words) with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what it does, what is required, and what happens next. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, required inputs, consent requirement, follow-up, and the response. Optional parameter details are fully handled by the schema. It could be more explicit about how this complements or differs from sibling tools, but the description is otherwise complete.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds only a small emphasis on name/email and consent, which is largely redundant with schema descriptions. It does not need to explain optional parameters further.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Registers a prospective buyer's interest with the Ocean Builders sales team.' This clearly identifies the tool as a submission action, distinct from the read-only sibling tools like search_inventory and get_unit_details. It also summarizes prerequisites and the follow-up, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is used when a buyer wants to express interest and gives consent to be contacted, with the sales team following up by email. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., 'for pricing questions, use get_pricing_and_deposit_policy'). This is clear context with no exclusions.

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