RentalCal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond that. It distinguishes booked nights from nights that are not yet open, explains bookableFrom and bookableUntil, applies maxNights, and clarifies inclusive/exclusive range semantics.

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 front-loads what the tool returns and then defines the ambiguous terms that affect interpretation. Every sentence earns its place by adding either semantics or usage constraints, with no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returned concepts, and it does so well. With read-only annotations and complete schema coverage, it gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the results.

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 baseline is 3, and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds useful range constraints, such as defaulting to the next 90 days and allowing at most 365 days per call, though it does not add further detail about propertyId.

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 resource and output: booked nights and open date ranges with minimum-stay rules, and it explains the key returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as get_quote, but the availability-focused purpose is clear.

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 gives useful usage constraints, including a default range of the next 90 days and a maximum of 365 days per call. However, it does not say when to use this tool rather than get_quote or other siblings, so alternatives are only implied.

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 a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the disambiguation behavior when one website hosts several properties, and an explicit enumeration of returned data. No output schema exists, so this return disclosure carries genuine weight.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then inputs, then returns, then the edge case. The list of returned fields is long but justified because there is no output schema to carry it. Slightly dense but no wasted framing.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted inputs, return payload, and the multi-property edge case. Only the relationship to sibling lookup tools is left unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating accepted input shapes (site address, full URL, bare site name, host domain) that the terse schema example does not fully spell out.

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 (look up) and resource (vacation rental) and explains the two lookup paths clearly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_property, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Gives implicit guidance through the accepted input forms and the multi-property candidate case, but never states when to prefer this over get_property or get_quote, nor the intended workflow (resolve site → then fetch details).

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the amount convention ('integer cents in the property's currency') and the full breadth of returned data. It stops short of stating behavior for missing/invalid ids or pagination, but that is a minor gap against a fully declared safe-read profile.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the long field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema to describe the return payload. The comma-separated list is dense and unstructured rather than categorized, but every item earns its place as return-value documentation.

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 assumes responsibility for describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly while also fixing the currency/unit convention — a detail easy to get wrong. For a low-complexity single-parameter read tool guarded by complete annotations, the only meaningful omissions are error/not-found behavior and how it differs from sibling lookups.

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% for the single propertyId parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates that the input is 'a property id' and adds no format, prefix, or validity detail beyond the schema's 'A RentalCal property id.'

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+resource ('The full listing for a property id') and enumerates exactly what the listing contains, so an agent knows this returns the complete property record rather than a summary. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like find_property or get_quote, though the 'full listing' framing implicitly separates it from search-style 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'for a property id' signals the precondition that an id must already be known, which naturally routes an agent here after find_property. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of the alternatives (find_property, get_quote) that an agent might otherwise choose.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by detailing the price components, the refundable deposit and hold-at-booking behavior, the bookingUrl handoff, and the failure mode when a stay is not allowed, adding substantial context beyond annotations.

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 dense sentences are front-loaded with the tool's output and purpose, then cover the bookingUrl and failure behavior without filler. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 minimal annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: price breakdown, deposit handling, bookingUrl, and failure reasons. Nothing critical is missing for an agent 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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the six parameters documented in the schema. The description references dates and guests and mentions 'too many guests' but adds no parameter syntax, format, or meaning beyond 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 names a specific action and resource: pricing a stay, returning nightly rates, fees, taxes, total, deposit, and a bookingUrl. It is clearly distinct from find_property/get_property, but it never explicitly names a sibling or states which sibling to use instead, so it falls short of the top bar for sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the content – get an exact price and booking link for a stay – but the description never states when to call this versus check_availability, find_property, or get_property, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It gives no explicit routing guidance.

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