Riviera Maya Elite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds useful shape about the payload (ten local picks, links, a development count), which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, freshness, or whether missing areas error out.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. However, the listing is packed into one clause chain ('the guide page, ten local picks with map or website links, and how many developments...'), which is dense but readable; it earns its place but could be split for scanability.

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 only two well-documented enum parameters and read-only annotations, the definition is close to sufficient. What is missing is the key routing information — that this is the broad overview call for an area and how it relates to the development-listing siblings — which matters given five sibling directory tools.

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 both parameters are enumerated, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes by tying the guide to a town area and implying the 'lang' choice affects 'labels and links' in the returned content, giving the language parameter real meaning rather than a bare enum.

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 resource (an area guide for a town in the Riviera Maya) and itemizes its contents: the guide page, ten local picks with map/website links, and a count of covered developments. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_business or search_directory, keeping it short of a 5.

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 says what the guide contains but never states when to call this tool versus list_developments, search_directory, or get_business. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions, so the agent must infer that this is the orientation/overview tool from the word 'Overview' alone.

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, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that lookup is directory-scoped and that either an opaque id or an exact name is accepted, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown or non-unique names, or what 'details' comprises.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then the input constraint, with no redundant restatement of the title or name. Every clause carries information the 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?

For a simple read tool this covers selection and input, but with no output schema the description never indicates what 'details' actually returns, which is the main thing an agent cannot infer. The lang parameter's effect on returned labels is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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 beyond the schema by disclosing the id prefix formats ('f:… or l:…'), which the schema does not mention and which helps the agent validate input. The lang parameter is left entirely to the schema, keeping this from a 5.

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 ('Details for one business from the directory') with an explicit singular scope, which separates it from the sibling search_directory that returns many results. It even names the upstream tool that produces the required id, so the agent can place it in the workflow 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?

The description implies the correct sequencing: call search_directory first, then pass the returned id here. It does not state exclusions (e.g. what to do if the exact name is ambiguous or if no match exists), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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?

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent operation with no open-world side effects. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that it only provides links and never submits anything on the user's behalf. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is less critical here.

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 two sentences and front-loads the resource being provided. The enumerated list is dense but necessary to convey the available link categories, and the second sentence adds the key usage and safety boundary 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?

For a simple read-only link-provider with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and the critical constraint that it does not perform submissions. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

There is one optional language parameter, and the schema fully documents it with an enum, default, and purpose. The description does not mention the lang parameter or add meaning 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 resource: links to Riviera Maya Elite pages for property buying, mortgage pre-qualification, travel planning, contact, and listing correction/removal. It is clear what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling directory and guide 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?

It gives a clear usage condition: use when the person wants to act, and send them to the page. It also states the boundary that the server never submits anything, but it does not name alternative tools or explain when not to use this one.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope (Playa del Carmen businesses) and the per-category business counts, which is useful behavioral context. It says nothing about whether counts are live or cached, or about result ordering, so it stops short of rich transparency.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the first states the content and scope, the second states the follow-up action. Front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, describing the returned fields and counts is exactly the missing context an agent needs and it is supplied here. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering of categories or whether counts are static.

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% and the single lang parameter is fully documented with its enum and default in the schema. The description adds no further parameter guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 the resource (directory categories), the returned fields (key, label, group) and the geographic scope (Playa del Carmen), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is set apart from the sibling search_directory by noting that the key feeds that tool's category filter. It loses a point only because the phrasing is a noun phrase without an explicit verb.

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 a concrete downstream instruction: 'Use the key as the category filter in search_directory,' which establishes this as the lookup step before searching. It does not state exclusions or contrast with get_area_guide, but for a small enumeration tool the implied workflow is clear enough.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses data provenance (facts taken only from developer websites) and that a source link and check date accompany each record. That provenance is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations, though caching/result-count behavior is unaddressed.

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 followed by the mandatory disclosure instructions, with no filler. It is dense but each clause carries a distinct fact or obligation, so nothing reads as padding.

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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field list, provenance, and presentation obligations — enough for an agent to call and report correctly. Minor omissions are result volume/pagination expectations and whether the list is cached or fresh beyond the check date.

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% with both parameters enum-constrained and described, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implicitly echoes the area filter by naming the three towns, and adds nothing about lang or default behavior beyond what the schema already documents; 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 (independent overview of residential developments for sale) and pins the scope to three named towns plus the source policy (each developer's own website). It also enumerates the fields returned — developer, zone, unit types, starting price, status, source link — so an agent knows exactly what it gets, and the 'NOT Riviera Maya Elite listings' note separates it from the sibling directory 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 gives strong guidance on how to present results (disclose non-affiliation, cite source and check date, tell the person to confirm prices), which implies the use case of answering buyer questions about developments. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like get_area_guide or search_directory, nor any exclusion conditions; the when-to-use is left inferential.

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 readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating what each result carries (name, type, neighbourhood, map link, website only for featured businesses, owner claim/correct link), which tells the agent how to interpret sparse fields. It stops short of describing empty-result or pagination behaviour.

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 with the search scope front-loaded and the filter/then-return structure easy to scan. The promotional framing ('Riviera Maya Elite's', 'curated picks') carries mild filler weight but also conveys coverage limits, so it is close to earning its place.

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 six-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters and a return-value summary adequately. Minor gaps are how results are ordered and what an empty result set looks like, neither of which blocks correct invocation.

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 adds meaning the schema does not: it clarifies that free-text matching spans name, type and neighbourhood, and that featured businesses are the ones with a website (tying featured_only to a visible outcome). Area/category/limit semantics remain entirely schema-driven.

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 (search) plus resource (directory of local businesses) and explicit corpus scope ('over 2,000 in Playa del Carmen plus curated picks for Akumal and Cancún'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_business (single listing) and list_categories (which it names as the source of category keys).

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 concrete usage examples for the free-text filter ('tacos centro', 'dentist', 'boat tours') and states that category comes from list_categories, which is genuine how-to guidance. However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to siblings such as get_business for a known business; the agent must infer the division of labour.

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