Venues Abroad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the multi-item scope; it says nothing about the comparison output, ordering, or how mismatched fields are handled, so it clears the lower annotated bar but adds little.

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 short sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler paragraphs. The phrase 'fact by fact' is stylistic and carries little operational meaning, keeping it just short of maximal.

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 tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the definition is close to sufficient, but it never hints at what the side-by-side comparison returns or what the agent should expect to do with it (there is no output schema). Adequate, with a clear gap in expected result.

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 parameter at 0% top-level schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. Instead, 'Two to five listings' merely restates the schema's minItems/maxItems, and the URL-vs-slug format is only documented inside the schema itself. No added semantic meaning beyond structured fields.

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 gives a specific action on a specific resource ('listings side by side') and encodes the cardinality constraint ('Two to five'). It implicitly separates itself from the singular get_listing sibling by requiring multiple listings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to pick this over get_listing or search_listings, and no prerequisites mentioned. The only inference an agent can draw is the 2-5 count from the phrasing.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context about returned provenance (source page and check date per fact), but says nothing about lookup failure behavior, freshness windows, or result size.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that packs the resource plus the three most relevant return characteristics. Nothing could be removed 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 must carry the return-value burden, and it only gestures at it ('every fact') without describing structure, field names, or shape. For a one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response payload.

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 parameter is documented as 'the listing URL or its slug (the last part of the URL).' The description introduces no additional syntax, format, or validation detail, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 retrieval verb and resource ('One listing') and goes further to enumerate what comes back: every fact, the source page per fact, and the verification date. This clearly separates it from the multi-item siblings (compare_listings, search_listings), though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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: 'One listing' signals single-item lookup by URL/slug, which contrasts naturally with search_listings and compare_listings. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer a sibling, and no prerequisite or error 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each category comes with listing counts and filter values, which is useful return-shape context, though it omits ordering or whether filtering is possible.

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 short clause with no filler or redundancy. It is terse and front-loaded, though the fragmentary grammar makes the structure slightly awkward.

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 must carry the burden of explaining return values, and it does so only briefly (categories, listing counts, filters with values). For a simple zero-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves details like ordering or nesting unspecified.

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 the schema cannot carry parameter meaning and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 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 names the resource ('categories') and hints at the returned content (listing counts, filters with values), but is a verbless fragment that never states the action. It adds some information beyond the title but remains only a vague statement of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_places or search_listings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be weakly inferred from the fact that it returns categories.

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful return-content hint (places come with listing counts), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth beyond what annotations supply.

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 short sentence with no filler, but it is a verbless fragment that front-loads the noun phrase rather than the action, making it slightly awkward to parse as an instruction.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description's lack of any explanation of the category parameter and its enum leaves a real gap. It does convey what the result contains, which partly compensates for the absent 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 coverage is only 50%: parent is described in the schema (notably as returning 'towns', which conflicts slightly with the description's 'places'), while category has an enum but no explanation anywhere. The description never mentions category or its two allowed values, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (places) and what it returns (places with listings and their numbers), but it is a noun phrase with no verb – it never actually says 'list'. It hints at scope (top-level vs. nested) but doesn't clearly distinguish itself from list_categories or search_listings.

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 phrase 'the top level, or the places inside a parent place' implies the two modes of use and maps to the optional parent parameter, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative sibling tool for comparison.

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 destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond structured fields: 20 results per page and a default ordering of "most checked facts first," which the sort enum alone does not disclose. It stops short of describing pagination metadata or how filters combine.

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 no filler; the core capability and pagination/ordering facts are front-loaded. The closing pointer to list_categories earns its place, though "most checked facts first" is slightly awkward phrasing for a default sort order.

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 with a nested filter object and no output schema, the description covers pagination and ordering but says nothing about what a returned listing contains, whether a total count is returned, or how the free-text query and where parameters interact. The list_categories cross-reference helps but the definition remains thin for its complexity.

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 50%, and the description largely defers to list_categories for what filter names and values mean rather than explaining them itself. That deferral is genuinely useful routing, but it does not compensate for the undocumented top-level parameters (page, sort, category) or clarify the semantics of the nested filter object.

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?

"Find listings of Venues Abroad" gives a clear verb (find) and resource (listings) and the phrase "with the filters of the site" signals it is a filtered search. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like compare_listings or get_listing, so an agent must infer the boundary from the multi-result/pagination behavior rather than being told.

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 usage (browse listings with filters, paginated) and redirects to list_categories for filter names/values, which is a useful hand-off. However it never states when to prefer this over compare_listings or get_listing, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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