Ferienwohnung Bruno – Garmisch-Partenkirchen

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

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it is read-only and does not accept personal data, and it reveals that the guest makes the request, not the tool. This clarifies the tool's role and output structure.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists the details efficiently. No unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only nature of the tool and the presence of robust annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns (link, email subject, phone number) and its limitations. No output schema is needed for this simple use case.

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 description explains that the parameters (travel dates and number of people) are used to prefill the link, which adds meaning beyond the schema's basic date format descriptions. It also compensates for the undocumented 'erwachsene' parameter, whose purpose is clarified as part of the person count.

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 purpose: it delivers the two ways to make a booking request (pre-filled form link and email/phone). It also differentiates from sibling tools by specifying this is about initiating a request, not calculating prices or checking 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 implies when to use it (when a guest needs to make an inquiry) and provides a clear exclusion: 'diese Schnittstelle nimmt keine persönlichen Daten entgegen' (does not accept personal data). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive. The description adds useful context by specifying that the response includes the time period and amount of the discount. It does not detail pagination or full list behavior, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 key information ('Laufende und geplante Sondertarife') and avoids any fluff. Every part of the sentence contributes value.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential content: it lists current and planned special rates with period and discount amount. It does not explicitly mention whether the list is exhaustive or if there are any limits, but this is a minor omission.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. According to the baseline for tools with no parameters, this scores 4 because the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 lists current and planned special rates, particularly last-minute discounts, with period and discount amount. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling 'preise' by focusing on special offers rather than standard prices, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 implied: use this to retrieve current special offers/discounts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'preise' or 'preis_berechnen', and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by emphasizing that there is no personal reference ('ohne jeden Personenbezug'), which is a privacy guarantee not present in annotations, and clarifies that the output is occupied periods rather than availability.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose, and the second adds a use case without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the resource (occupied time periods), the time horizon (coming months), and the intended use (suggesting free appointments). It does not specify output format, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'monate' with range and default, covering 100% of the parameter info. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns already occupied time periods for the coming months, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from a generic availability query by the term 'belegte Zeitspannen', though it does not explicitly name sibling 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 provides an explicit use case: suggesting free appointments ('Nützlich, um freie Termine vorzuschlagen'). It does not include exclusion criteria or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it when free slots need to be derived.

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, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds that only 'freigegebene' (approved) reviews are included and that the result includes stars, text, and the average, providing useful context about the data returned.

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 that conveys the essential information without wasted words.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: it names the data returned and its key components (stars, text, average). The absence of an explicit return structure is acceptable given the low 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?

The only parameter 'anzahl' is fully documented in the schema (integer 1-20, default 5). The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 identifies the tool as providing published guest reviews with star ratings, text, and the average rating. It is distinct from siblings like preise, verfuegbarkeit_pruefen, or faq_suchen, which address different concerns. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List', making it slightly less direct.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply it is for retrieving guest ratings, but there is no mention of exclusions or alternative 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail about full vs. filtered retrieval and provides example search terms, but does not describe response format or edge cases. This adds modest value beyond 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 one short sentence (~18 words), front-loaded with the subject and purpose. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 FAQ lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior: it returns the FAQs and answers, either full or filtered. It doesn't explain pagination or sorting, but the simplicity and annotations make it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'frage' documented as 'Suchbegriff oder Frage; leer für alle Einträge.' The description reiterates this and gives examples, but doesn't substantially add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'suchen' (search) with a clear resource 'häufigen Fragen und Antworten' (FAQs and answers). It clearly distinguishes between returning all entries or filtering by a search term. No sibling tool covers FAQ content, so this tool is unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool can return all FAQs or filter by a search term, implying when to use it (when FAQ content is needed). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tool names suggest this is the only FAQ-related tool, providing clear 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds valuable context by detailing exactly which components the calculation includes (seasonal prices, last-minute discounts, savings, visitor's tax by age, laundry package), which helps the agent understand the calculation logic beyond the safety hints.

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 core purpose ('Vollständige Preisberechnung') and then enumerates the included components. Every element adds value, with no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient and easily parsed.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: the scope (specific period), key inputs (dates, children's ages), and what is included in the result (seasonal prices, discounts, taxes, laundry). It stops short of explicitly stating the return format (e.g., whether a breakdown is provided), but the mention of 'bis zum Gesamtpreis' implies the total is returned. Overall, it is largely complete for its purpose.

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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that children's ages ('kinder_alter') directly influence the visitor's tax ('Kurtaxe nach Alter'), which clarifies the parameter's role in the calculation beyond its schema description. It also mentions a laundry package not reflected as a parameter, providing additional context.

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 calculates a full price for a specific date range, enumerating components like seasonal nightly rates, last-minute discounts, visitor's tax by age, and laundry package. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'preise' (price list) and 'verfuegbarkeit_pruefen' (availability check), as it specifically computes a total for a concrete period.

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 the tool is used when a concrete period is known and a comprehensive price (including discounts and taxes) is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'preise' for basic rates, so usage guidance remains at the implied level.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data scope (seasonal prices, validity, minimum stay, tax rates, laundry package), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format, pagination, or any limits, which are not covered by annotations either.

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 in German, front-loading the core content ('Saisonpreise pro Nacht') and enumerating the additional attributes without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and clear read-only annotations—the description covers all key aspects: per-night rates, validity period, minimum stay, visitor's tax, and laundry package. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what this tool provides and select it appropriately.

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 has zero parameters in its input schema, so schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics beyond the schema's empty property set.

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 identifies the tool as providing seasonal per-night prices with validity period, minimum stay, visitor's tax rates, and laundry package. While it lacks an explicit verb, the resource and its scope are specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like preis_berechnen (price calculation).

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as preis_berechnen or verfuegbarkeit_pruefen. There is no explicit use-case guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description only lists content, not behavioral traits such as data freshness, response format, or whether the data is static. It does not contradict annotations, and the lack of additional behavior notes is acceptable given 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 that packs a comprehensive list of information types without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key content categories and immediately tells the agent what to expect. Every element 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what information will be provided. It covers all relevant categories (description, address, size, amenities, rules, check-in times, review score) and leaves no ambiguity. The simplicity of the tool and the completeness of the description make it entirely adequate.

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 are no parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (vacuously). The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information. The description does not mention parameters, which is consistent with a zero-parameter tool.

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 enumerates the exact data fields (description, address, size, amenities, house rules, check-in times, review score) and specifies the exact property and location (Ferienwohnung Bruno in Garmisch-Partenkirchen). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on prices, availability, or reviews.

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 strongly implies when to use the tool: whenever general accommodation information is needed. It provides clear context via the field list, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the sibling tools' names inherently suggest their different purposes, so the usage context is largely clear.

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, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by mentioning both the free-period check and the season minimum-stay rule, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter read-only availability check, the description adequately covers the main behavior and an important edge case (seasonal minimum stay). It does not specify the return format, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap, especially given the sibling context.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (anreise, abreise) fully documented including date format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('prüft') and resource ('ob ein Zeitraum frei ist'), and adds a second condition (Mindestaufenthalt der Saison), which distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'belegte_zeitraeume' that list occupied periods.

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 checking availability and minimum-stay compliance, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'belegte_zeitraeume' or 'preis_berechnen', nor any exclusions.

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