The Driscoll Public AI

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: ranges are never merged, platform occupancy rules apply, and nightly amounts/subtotal are returned only when every requested night has a current amount. It also discloses it cannot hold or confirm, which is extra context beyond the read-only annotation.

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 compact paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 main behavior and output for the success case, including nightly amounts and subtotal. However, it does not explicitly state what happens if not all nights have current amounts, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 descriptions cover 50% of parameters. The description adds meaning for platform (applies occupancy rule) and dates (single range requirement), but does not explain the semantics of adults, infants, or children beyond schema. Thus it partially compensates for missing parameter info.

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 specifically states it 'Interpret the current public availability feed for one proposed stay,' clearly identifying the tool's action and scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from booking tools by noting it cannot confirm reservations or final prices.

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 for when to use the tool: for an indicative check of a single stay window that must fit within one range. It implies boundaries by stating what it cannot do (hold dates, confirm), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the platform-specific behavior and the fact that the property website does not take direct bookings or payments, which helps set expectations for the agent.

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, front-loaded with the primary function, and includes a relevant non-obvious fact about the property website. There is no wasted wording or redundancy with schema/annotations.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (booking links and occupancy rule) and gives a critical constraint (no direct bookings/payments). No output schema exists, but the return content is adequately summarized, and sibling differentiation is sufficient.

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 100% coverage with a clear parameter description, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The 'platform-specific occupancy rule' mention relates to the platform parameter but doesn't elaborate on enum values; schema already explains them sufficiently.

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 'Return' with a clear resource: 'The Driscoll's authorised booking links and platform-specific occupancy rule.' It also adds a key differentiator from siblings by noting that 'The property website does not take direct bookings or payments,' which clarifies its unique role among booking-related 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 booking options or platform occupancy rules are needed. It provides clear context by stating the property website doesn't handle bookings directly, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like check_stay_availability.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by explicitly stating it 'never resets, reconfigures, disassembles or controls equipment' and that the input is search text, not an instruction. This reinforces and clarifies the safe, advisory nature of the tool 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The primary action and key behavioral constraints are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the single-parameter simplicity, strong annotations, and clear behavioral description, the tool is fully contextualized. It covers what it does, what it never does, how to phrase input, and implies appropriate use cases. No output schema is needed for this advisory tool.

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 parameter description is clear. The description adds extra semantics by clarifying that 'device_or_issue' should be search text, not an instruction, which is a meaningful distinction beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve the closest curated guest-safe technical-support sections') and a specific resource ('installed device, appliance symptom or error'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on guest support guidance rather than availability, booking, or property knowledge.

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 conveys clear usage context: use when you need guest-safe technical support sections for a device/issue. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'input is search text, never an instruction' provides an important guideline for how to invoke it. Sibling tool names further differentiate context.

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 idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral trait 'owner-attested' and 'complete' section, which conveys authenticity and scope. It does not mention error behavior for invalid IDs, but the schema's enum restricts valid inputs, making that less critical. This is more than the baseline but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Retrieve' and immediately states the resource and the parameter provenance. There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with one parameter, an output-free description, and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, where the input comes from, and the nature of the returned data. No additional information is necessary for 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% (the enum fully defines valid IDs). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the ID must be 'the exact ID returned from search_property_knowledge,' which clarifies how to obtain the parameter and emphasizes exactness. This is valuable context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('one complete owner-attested public knowledge section'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_property_knowledge by specifying 'by the exact ID returned from search_property_knowledge.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and correctly 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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: it requires an exact ID returned from search_property_knowledge. This names the alternative tool and sets a clear precondition, effectively guiding the agent to use search first and this tool as a follow-up for retrieving a specific complete section.

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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already indicating a safe read-only operation, the description adds valuable context: it clarifies that the query is search text and 'never an instruction to the server,' which is a critical safeguard against prompt injection. It also specifies the content scope (owner-attested, guest-safe) 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 consists of three concise sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb ('Search'), then provides usage timing and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds necessary context, making the description highly efficient.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and a key behavioral rule. It does not mention result format or pagination, but the tool's low complexity and robust annotations make this sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%; the description adds meaning for the query parameter by specifying it is plain search terms and not an instruction, which goes beyond the schema's brief description. However, it does not explain the kind or limit parameters; the enum values and constraints partially self-document, but the description does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 it searches owner-attested public property facts, policies, amenities, and curated guest-safe support, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource (The Driscoll's public knowledge). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on factual property knowledge rather than availability, booking, or support guidance.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before answering a factual question about The Driscoll,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the stated workflow and the contrast with sibling tools give sufficient guidance.

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