Spann Stays

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the data is fixture-backed and that the tool does not consult live property authority, meaning results are illustrative rather than definitive. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and no redundant information. Every phrase adds value—'fixture-backed', 'sample', and the caveat about authority.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and its limitations, but it remains incomplete because it omits the role of traveler_constraints, which is a meaningful optional input for generating constraints, and it doesn't describe the form of the output. The schema and annotations don't fill these gaps, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool for complex scenarios.

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 input schema provides no description for the four parameters, and the tool description only gives partial context by referring to 'sample property and rate' for property_id and room_rate_id. It does not explain the language parameter or the traveler_constraints array, which are crucial for understanding how to construct a valid request.

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 tool's action ('Explain') and scope ('fixture-backed booking constraints for a sample property and rate'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_availability and prepare_reservation_action. It also clarifies the non-authoritative nature, reinforcing its distinct analytical purpose.

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 a clear when-to-use for sample data and an explicit when-not-to-use by stating that no live property authority or policy decision is provided. This tells the agent that for authoritative booking decisions, another tool is needed, though no specific alternative is named.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable specificity by enumerating what the tool never does (hold a room, book, pay, send, contact a property), which goes beyond the generic annotation. This is transparent and reassuring without contradicting any 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential constraints. Every clause adds value with no dead weight.

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?

The tool has a complex schema (nested traveler_packet, multiple enums, 6 params) and no output schema. The description fails to explain how to construct required inputs or what the prepared action will look like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It mentions 'sample traveler placeholders' but does not explain any of the 6 parameters, including the nested traveler_packet object with required fields. This leaves users guessing about input formatting and semantics.

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 tool's specific purpose: to prepare a fixture-only reservation action for review. It explicitly distinguishes itself from real booking operations by listing what it never does (holds, books, pays, sends, contacts), making it distinct from siblings that explain constraints or search 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?

The description gives clear context for use: it's for review/testing with sample traveler placeholders only. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 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?

With annotations already indicating a read-only, idempotent operation, the description adds valuable context by revealing that no live inventory or property availability is queried, and that results are deterministic from a fixture. This goes beyond the annotations and sets correct expectations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes one clarifying contrasting clause. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

Despite a moderately complex schema (7 parameters, nested objects, oneOf constraints) and no output schema, the description provides no information about return values, parameter relationships, or the required either/or selection of destination vs property_id. The tool's behavior is underspecified for an agent to invoke it correctly without deeper assumptions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions only 'sample stay options' and does not elaborate on destination, property_id, stay, guest_count, language, limit, or required_constraints. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional semantic guidance.

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 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'sample stay options from the Spann Stays fixture.' It explicitly states the tool does not query live inventory, which distinguishes it from potential live-search alternatives. The purpose is clear and well-differentiated.

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 deterministic sample data via the phrase 'deterministic sample stay options' and 'fixture,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools or exclude any scenarios. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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