Dhananjaya Villas Bali

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds useful return content (room types, rate plans, total stay price, booking link), but says nothing about what happens when nothing is available, whether prices include taxes/fees, or whether results are paginated. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 that names the resource, the inputs, and the outputs with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the missing context, not verbosity, is the issue.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must define the return value, and it does list the key fields (room type, rate plan, stay price, booking link). However, for a 4-parameter pricing tool it omits date format expectations, currency, tax/fee treatment, and the no-availability case, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 25% — only property_code is documented. The description implies check_in/check_out are the 'dates' but gives no format, and says nothing about adults (default 2, max 12) and how occupancy filters available room types. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, which matters most for the date strings and the occupancy filter.

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 resource and scope: available room types and rate plans for one villa over given dates, with stay price and a booking link. That distinguishes it from search_villas (which finds villas) and from villa_details (static property info), though it never explicitly says 'get prices/availability for a single property' as a verb framing.

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 rather than stated: the property_code parameter notes it comes from search_villas, so the natural workflow (search, then check this villa) is discoverable. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-current_offers guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites such as date ordering.

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 content detail (the named promotion types and their conditions) but says nothing about freshness, completeness of the offer list, or whether conditions are returned verbatim — modest added value 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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the examples are front-loaded to make the scope concrete. It loses a mark only because the noun-phrase framing is slightly less immediately actionable than a verb-led statement.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description conveys enough about what comes back (promotions and their conditions) to set expectations. It could be more complete by indicating whether the offers are site-wide or tied to specific villas/dates, but nothing essential for calling it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain, and it correctly implies a no-argument retrieval.

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 a specific resource — the promotions on book.dhananjaya.id — and concrete examples (Best Rate Guarantee, Early Bird, Stay Longer) plus their conditions, which clearly separates it from siblings like check_availability and villa_details. It is expressed as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, so it states what the tool exposes rather than what action it performs.

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?

Usable context is implied: an agent asking about current deals or promotional terms would naturally call this. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how it complements check_availability or villa_details (e.g. whether offers can be combined with a quote), and no 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 openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results carry the lowest price for the stay and a booking link, making the return content predictable. It does not mention the default/max result limit or what happens when nothing matches, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, with the core capability front-loaded before the optional refinements. Nothing needs trimming and nothing important is buried.

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 correctly compensates by stating what a result contains (lowest price, booking link). Slight gaps remain around result count behavior (limit defaults to 8, max 20) and multi-guest semantics ('adults per room'), but for a read-only search over a closed catalog it is close to self-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 description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents area, dates, breakfast, and max_price_per_night. The description restates the same optional filters with area examples but adds no meaning beyond the schema, and it says nothing about 'adults' or 'limit'. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find Dhananjaya villas and resorts in Bali') and adds the outcome ('lowest price for the stay and a booking link'). It is clearly a catalog-wide search, which implicitly separates it from check_availability and villa_details, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Usage context is implied by naming the optional filters (area, max price, breakfast), which signals this is the browsing/filtering entry point. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs check_availability or current_offers guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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?

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish this as a safe, closed-domain read, so the description does not need to argue safety. With no output schema, the field enumeration (rating, house rules, photos) is genuinely valuable disclosure of return content, but nothing is said about what happens with an invalid property code, whether photos are URLs, or any payload size or rate considerations.

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 tight sentence with zero filler and the resource stated first. The comma list of fields is slightly dense but every item maps to useful information, and nothing is redundant with the title.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, listing the returned field groups is the right instinct, but the definition leaves the caller's two open questions—where property_code comes from and what an unmatched code yields—entirely unanswered. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is instructional rather than behavioral.

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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what property_code is, its format, or its provenance, so an agent must guess whether it is a numeric id, a slug, or an internal code.

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?

"Description, location, facilities, house rules, Google rating, room types and photos of one villa" names the resource (one villa) and enumerates exactly what comes back, which cleanly separates it from search_villas, check_availability and current_offers. It lacks an explicit verb ("Get"), but the name/title combination makes the operation 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when not to use it. Critically, it never says the property_code must first come from search_villas, which is the single decision point an agent faces when choosing among these four siblings.

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