La Palma 24 - Vacation Rentals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it adequately discloses that the tool checks availability and allows filtering by municipality, neighborhood, and guest count. As a read-only search operation, it doesn't require disclosure of side effects or permissions. The description adds context about the geographic scope (La Palma) and the filtering capability.

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 main purpose, and includes only necessary details about filters. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition 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 essential behavior, targets, and filters. Although there is no output schema to reference, the description implies that the tool returns a list of available properties, which is sufficient for a search tool of this complexity. Slight gap: it doesn't specify the exact return format, but the core completeness is strong.

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 every parameter already having a description, format, or default. The description only names the filter parameters (municipio, barrio, num_personas) without adding additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 the tool's purpose: searching for available vacation properties in La Palma for specific dates. It specifies the resource (properties), the action (search availability), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_propiedades or calcular_precio_estancia by focusing on date-based availability and filtering.

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 this tool—when looking for properties available on specific dates—by explicitly mentioning date requirements and available filters. It doesn't name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by specifying that the calculation includes seasonal rates, discounts, nights, and persons, which goes beyond the raw input/output schema. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, or how errors are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and scope without any redundant words. Every phrase 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?

While the description covers the core purpose and calculation factors, it lacks details about return values, edge cases, or prerequisites. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected behavior, leaving it adequate but with clear 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking dates to 'número de noches' and referencing 'personas', and by explaining that discounts and seasonal rates are factored in, enriching the semantic meaning of the inputs.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Calcula' and resource 'precio total de una estancia', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or search properties. It also lists the key factors (seasonal rates, discounts, nights, persons) that define its scope.

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 for calculating stay prices but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There are no alternatives mentioned or exclusions given, leaving the usage context purely implied.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool gets a list and optionally filters, which largely repeats the schema; it does not disclose output shape, ordering, pagination, behavior when no matches occur, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 verb and resource, then adds the optional filter and use case. Every clause contributes meaningful information without unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential details: what is returned and when it is useful. It is adequate, though it could be slightly richer by mentioning the relationship to sibling tools or the exact structure of the returned list.

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%; the input schema already documents 'municipio' with an example. The description's 'opcionalmente filtrados por municipio' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Obtiene la lista de barrios/zonas disponibles', clearly indicating it returns location neighborhoods. It also mentions the optional 'municipio' filter, which differentiates it from sibling tools like listar_municipios and listar_propiedades.

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 'Útil para búsquedas más específicas de ubicación' gives a clear use case for more specific location searches, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use listar_municipios instead), so guidance is only implied.

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 no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope ('donde hay propiedades') and guarantees a complete list ('lista completa'), which is useful. It does not mention return format, pagination, or potential empty results, but for a simple read-only list tool this is somewhat 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase serves a purpose. It is efficient and clear 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool returns and why it is useful. It doesn't describe the exact data structure, but that is not necessary for a simple list 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty and coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the output scope ('complete list' and 'where properties exist'), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 action ('Obtiene la lista completa de municipios'), the resource ('municipios disponibles en La Palma donde hay propiedades'), and scope. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'listar_barrios' by focusing specifically on municipalities, not neighborhoods.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Útil para saber qué ubicaciones se pueden filtrar' – the agent knows when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, though the scope is well-defined.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination ('Incluye paginación'), which is a behavioral trait, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, result ordering, or potential volume of results. The pagination mention is somewhat redundant given the limit/offset parameters, but it still adds some behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the main action, optional filters, and pagination. No wasted words; every piece of information is relevant and necessary.

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 list tool with no output schema and six optional parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits any mention of how results are returned (e.g., full objects vs. summaries), default sort order, or how this tool interacts with siblings like buscar_disponibilidad. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds only a high-level grouping ('ubicación, capacidad y características') that roughly maps to the parameters, but does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('propiedades vacacionales disponibles'), making it clear this is a listing tool for available vacation properties with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like obtener_detalles_propiedad (specific property details) and buscar_disponibilidad (availability search) by implying a broad list operation.

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: use this to list all available properties, with optional filters for location, capacity, and features. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings that an agent can infer when to use it. However, it stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It discloses the types of information returned (features, amenities, photos, etc.) and that descriptions are localized. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid id_casa), response size, or whether photos are URLs or embedded data. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence in Spanish that clearly states the action, object, and scope. Every element (characteristics, amenities, location, prices, photos, language) earns its place, and there is no redundant fluff. It is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of the response content by listing key categories. It doesn't specify the exact structure or failure modes, but for a property-details retrieval tool, this is adequate. The lack of output schema raises the importance of the description, which covers the main aspects of expected return data.

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 of both parameters, including descriptions for id_casa and idioma, so runtime parameter semantics are already well-defined. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond 'idioma solicitado', which is essentially restating the idioma parameter. Thus, parameter semantics depend fully on the schema, yielding a baseline score.

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 specifies a clear action ('obtiene información completa') on a specific resource ('propiedad específica') and enumerates content categories (características, amenidades, precios, fotos, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like listar_propiedades (listing) and calcular_precio_estancia (pricing).

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 makes it evident this tool is for retrieving rich details of a single property, implying use when a specific property's full information is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but context signals with sibling names reinforce differentiation. No explicit 'when not to use' is provided.

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