Sumberkima Hill

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description earns credit above that by stating the link retains guest details for only 3 days and that no booking or charge occurs until the guest accepts the rental agreement and pays. It leaves one non-idempotency gap: whether calling twice produces duplicate links or reuses an existing one.

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 outcome (a link) and followed by the precondition and the no-charge guarantee. Slightly wordier than needed in the first sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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 8 parameters including a nested guest object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition and side effects well. The remaining gap is what is actually returned (a URL string? expiry timestamp?), which it gestures at with 'a link' but never specifies.

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 explains property slug format, date formats, occupancy counts and the guest sub-fields. The description's contribution on parameters is limited to explaining why guest details are worth supplying (pre-filled form), which the schema's own 'Leave out anything you do not know' largely covers. 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?

The description concretely defines the artifact produced: a pre-filled property page link with dates, guests and live price applied. That is far more specific than the title restated, and the 'nothing is booked or charged' line separates it from a booking-creation tool. It never names a sibling workflow (e.g. search_stays -> create_booking_link), so differentiation from the read-only siblings is left implicit.

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 agent can infer it is called after picking a property and dates, and the guest object is optional. There is no explicit 'use this when the guest is ready to book' versus 'use get_quote for pricing only', and no stated prerequisite that the property slug must come 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what data comes back, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown slug, whether results are cached, or rate limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, no filler. The field list is dense but each item tells the agent what to expect back, which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 enumerated return fields do real work in telling the agent what to expect, and the single-parameter schema is self-documenting. The main remaining gap is error behavior for an invalid or unknown property slug.

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 single 'property' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including the slug pattern and example format), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly that it returns the full record for a single property, and the field enumeration (beds, amenities, house rules, prices, photos) makes the scope concrete. It does not name siblings like list_properties or search_stays, but the singular 'one property' framing implicitly separates it from those list 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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent has to infer that this is the follow-up call after search_stays or list_properties yields a slug; nothing in the description says that.

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, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the quote is 'exact' and 'live', it returns a payment schedule plus policies, and it surfaces structured failure reasons rather than a generic error. It stops short of saying whether a quote expires or is held, which would matter for a booking flow.

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 primary outcome and appends the failure mode in a parenthetical. Zero filler, and both branches an agent needs to reason about are in the first clause set.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the payment schedule, policies, and rejection reasons. Minor gaps remain around quote validity/expiry and currency, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters including the guest/pet counts and date formats are already documented. The description only echoes that guest limits and minimum stay can block a booking, adding no format or default detail beyond the schema — 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?

A specific verb-noun pairing (live price quote) with explicit scope: one stay, one property. It also enumerates the two possible outcomes — a priced itinerary with payment schedule and policies, or a stated rejection reason — which lets an agent distinguish it from search_stays (multi-property browsing) 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'one stay at one property' signals this is the per-property pricing step, and the failure reasons ('dates taken, minimum stay') hint that it is a pre-booking check. But it never explicitly says when to call it versus search_stays or create_booking_link, nor that it is a prerequisite for booking.

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. The description adds useful content-scope detail about what information is returned, but it does not describe return format or clarify how this differs behaviorally from related lookup tools.

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 compact sentence with no filler. However, it is a noun-phrase list rather than a front-loaded purpose statement, so it is concise but slightly less structurally clear.

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 zero-parameter read-only lookup, listing the covered information categories is adequate for invocation. Still, it does not explain the return shape or clarify the boundary with get_property_details, leaving a gap for tool selection.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 enumerates the specific resort information covered (location, check-in/out, policies, currencies, contacts, key pages), making the resource scope clear. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_property_details, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_property_details or list_properties. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and the content list.

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. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the returned attributes (size, typical price) and pre-empts a common false expectation by stating availability is not checked. Ordering, result count, and pagination are unstated.

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 filler; the returned-content summary is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names what comes back and flags the missing availability dimension, which is the main ambiguity for a listing tool. It is slightly thin on whether results are capped or ordered, but an agent has enough 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% and both filters (minGuests, propertyType with an enum) are fully documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions neither filter and adds no semantics about how they combine or what happens when omitted.

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?

Names the resource (every property at Sumberkima Hill) and the payload fields returned (size, typical price), which is more than a tautology of the title. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (search_stays, get_property_details), so an agent still infers the boundary, keeping it below 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?

'Does not check availability for dates' is an explicit exclusion that signals when-not to use this tool, which is stronger than bare context. However, it never names the alternative (search_stays appears to be the availability-aware sibling), so the routing is left half-explicit.

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 safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what comes back — nightly price estimates, minimum-stay rules and booking links — which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting that prices are estimates only or how availability conflicts are handled.

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, no filler. The availability constraint and guest-fit condition lead, with the return contents second — the right order for an agent deciding whether to call.

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 13-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essential search semantics and sketches the response shape. Minor gaps remain: no mention of the default sort/limit behavior or that minimum-stay rules can exclude properties that are otherwise free.

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 a genuine semantic the schema does not state: availability must hold for every night in the range, and the party must fit. That clarifies how checkIn/checkOut and the guest-count parameters are combined. It adds nothing about limit, sort, or bedroom 'exactly vs 6+', which the schema already handles.

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 — finding properties available across a date range for a given party size — which is more precise than a generic 'search'. It does not name or differentiate from siblings such as list_properties or get_property_details, so an agent must infer that this is the availability-aware search rather than a plain catalog listing.

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 requirement that checkIn and checkOut be supplied signals this is the date-bounded search, which suggests when to prefer it over browsing tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. 'use get_quote for a firm price', 'use list_properties to browse without dates').

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