Hotel Bergsonne Allgäu Booking

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

Annotations cover idempotency, non-destructive nature, and open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial non-obvious context: city tax is already included (do not add it), unpriced stays are rejected rather than silently confirmed at 0.00 EUR, and payment is requested post-submission via secure link with a 7-day-before-arrival deadline and no cash. It does not describe the return payload, though no output schema exists.

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 content is front-loaded with the core action and prerequisites before details. It is dense but each sentence carries operational value — no filler. Slightly long, but every clause addresses a real failure or workflow concern.

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 complex 11-parameter booking mutation with nested customer object and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, validation behavior, tax handling, payment terms, and sandbox mode. The main gap is the absence of any description of what a successful booking returns (confirmation id, status).

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 further: it explains that roomId is a room-type abbreviation code (not a numeric ID) with examples, and that addons use addonId from the get_addons catalog. These clarify semantics beyond the schema text, which repeats the same hints but the description ties them into the workflow.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Create a hotel reservation at Hotel Bergsonne Allgäu' — immediately distinguishing it from its sibling read-only tools (search_availability, get_price_quote, get_hotel_details, get_addons, get_fact_sheet). An agent can tell this is the write operation that follows the availability/quote 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?

Explicit prerequisites are named: 'Call search_availability and get_price_quote for the same dates and room first.' It describes the failure mode (NOT_AVAILABLE / INVALID_RATE), routes to get_addons for addons, and explains the test flag for sandbox runs. This is textbook when-to-use and how-to-avoid-failure 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns a catalog and lists field names, but doesn't describe pagination, caching, rate limits, or return format beyond field names (no output schema exists).

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by return fields and a routing hint. Every sentence earns 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 simple read-only catalog tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to call correctly. It names return fields even without an output schema. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or whether the catalog is complete.

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 schema fully documents the optional 'language' enum. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'Fetch the catalog of bookable add-on extras', with concrete examples (wine, flowers, activities) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_fact_sheet or get_price_quote. An agent can tell exactly what this returns.

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?

Explicitly directs downstream usage: 'Use addonId values when adding addons to create_booking.' This connects the tool to its consumption context. However, it doesn't state when not to use it or any alternative catalog tools.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope and the 'German content only' constraint, which is meaningful behavioral context, but says nothing about size, image payloads, or latency for a rich media response.

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?

Three short sentences that front-load the action and resource, then scope the content and the language limit. Little waste, though the hard-coded hotel name is a distraction that does not generalize.

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 enumerates the returned content, and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only real gap is the unresolved conflict between 'German content only' and the multilingual parameter.

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%, which normally sets a baseline of 3, but the description's claim of 'German content only' directly conflicts with the language parameter's documented de/en/nl enum for free-text fields. That misleading statement actively undermines the schema rather than adding to it.

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 (fetch) and resource (GIATA property fact sheet) and enumerates the payload (descriptions, amenities, images, room classifications). It also draws a boundary against get_hotel_details by calling this 'marketing/classification data separate from operational hotel details', though the mention of one hard-coded hotel name muddies whether the tool is generic.

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 'separate from operational hotel details' phrase implicitly routes operational lookups to get_hotel_details, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Given five siblings, an agent must infer which cases warrant the fact sheet versus get_hotel_details.

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 openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the backing system (WBE) and the shape of what comes back (room types, times, contacts). It stops short of noting pagination, permissions, or partial-result behavior.

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, zero filler. The data payload is front-loaded and the sibling disambiguation comes second, which is the right ordering for a fetch tool.

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 data categories returned. It does not address optionality of fields, error cases, or whether all hotels return every field, which is a minor remaining gap for a read 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 single optional 'language' enum is fully documented in the schema, including the note that codes, times and prices are language-independent. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (hotel operational data) and it enumerates the concrete payload: room types with abbreviation codes (roomId), check-in/out times, contact information. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_fact_sheet), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

States the alternative and the exact condition that selects it: 'For rich marketing descriptions, use get_fact_sheet instead.' That is the primary confusion pair for this tool and it is resolved explicitly rather than left to inference.

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 openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious domain behavior: city tax (Kurtaxe) of 3.50 EUR/person/night is already baked into all rates, which affects how an agent interprets the returned total.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the input constraint, then the tax caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 characterizes the return value as a nightly breakdown plus total. It stops short of naming currency or the breakdown's fields, but combined with readOnly annotations it is sufficient to call the tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's roomId guidance (abbreviation codes like KAPDZ, KDZ) duplicates the schema text rather than adding format or validation detail, and the adults parameter is not elaborated on beyond what the schema 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 a specific verb+resource+scope: a nightly price breakdown and total for a specific room, at a named hotel. It also names the sibling tool (search_availability) that produces the required roomId, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the 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 establishes the prerequisite that roomId must come from search_availability results, which implicitly sequences the tools. It does not, however, state when-not to use it or contrast it with siblings like get_addons or create_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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the exact return shape (dates with rates AND a roomTypes array), lists example room IDs, and clarifies that city tax is already included in all rates—a non-obvious pricing detail that prevents double-counting.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then downstream usage, then a pricing caveat. Zero waste; every sentence earns 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 read-only search tool with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage on inputs, the description supplies everything else: return structure, roomId usage path, and the city-tax-included detail. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys the return shape.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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+resource ('Search real-time room availability and daily pricing') scoped to a named hotel. Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing what it returns (dates with rates and a roomTypes array) and how its output feeds get_price_quote and create_booking.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use the roomId from roomTypes for get_price_quote and create_booking, establishing a workflow relationship with siblings. It does not state when NOT to use this tool or compare against alternatives like get_hotel_details, but the downstream routing is clear.

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