La Palma 24 - Vacation Rentals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe response format, pagination, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main function, the second lists filtering capabilities. No 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 search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return format looks like (list of properties? availability statuses?), how results are structured, or any limitations. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the filtering capabilities (municipio, barrio, num_personas) but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or default behaviors beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 searches for available vacation properties in La Palma for specific dates, with filtering options. It specifies the resource (vacation properties) and action (search for availability), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listar_propiedades' which might list properties without availability constraints.

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 context (when looking for available vacation rentals during specific dates with location/guest filters) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'listar_propiedades' or 'calcular_precio_estancia'. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the calculation includes seasonal rates and discounts, which gives some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid dates), or what the output format looks like (since no output schema exists). For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Calcula el precio total de una estancia') and lists included factors without unnecessary elaboration. Every part earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating factors with commas or bullets).

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 complexity (calculating prices with multiple factors), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., total price, breakdown), error handling, or dependencies (e.g., needing valid property IDs). For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 schema already documents all parameters (id_casa, fecha_llegada, fecha_salida, num_personas) with their types, formats, and defaults. The description adds marginal value by implying that 'número de noches' is derived from the date range and 'número de personas' affects pricing, but it doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calcula el precio total de una estancia' (calculates the total price of a stay). It specifies what factors are included: seasonal rates, applicable discounts, number of nights, and number of people. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_disponibilidad' (check availability) or 'obtener_detalles_propiedad' (get property details), which might also involve pricing information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing property details first), nor does it clarify if this is for preliminary estimates versus final bookings. With siblings like 'buscar_disponibilidad' that might overlap in use cases, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'obtiene la lista' (gets the list), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, optional filtering capability, and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and optional filtering but lacks details about output format, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a simple list tool, this might be sufficient, but it doesn't provide complete context for reliable agent use.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'municipio' with its type and example. The description adds that filtering by municipality is optional ('opcionalmente filtrados por municipio'), which provides some additional context but doesn't significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Obtiene la lista de barrios/zonas disponibles' (gets the list of available neighborhoods/zones). It specifies the resource (barrios/zonas) and the action (obtener/listar). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listar_municipios' or 'listar_propiedades' beyond mentioning optional filtering by municipality.

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 some usage context: 'Útil para búsquedas más específicas de ubicación' (useful for more specific location searches), which implies when this tool might be helpful. It mentions optional filtering by municipality but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listar_municipios' or 'buscar_disponibilidad'.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only operation ('obtiene') but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the list is static or dynamic. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without any waste. The first sentence defines the tool's function, and the second adds practical context, both earning their place efficiently.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and its utility, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, freshness, or error handling. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in transparency.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for 0 parameters, since the schema fully covers the input requirements.

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: 'Obtiene la lista completa de municipios disponibles en La Palma donde hay propiedades' (Gets the complete list of municipalities available in La Palma where there are properties). It specifies the verb ('obtiene') and resource ('municipios'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on municipalities rather than properties or neighborhoods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'listar_barrios' (list neighborhoods), which might be a related geographical filter.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Útil para saber qué ubicaciones se pueden filtrar' (Useful to know which locations can be filtered). This suggests it's for discovering filterable municipalities, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listar_propiedades' (list properties) or 'listar_barrios' (list neighborhoods). No exclusions or prerequisites 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination (a key behavioral trait) and filtering capabilities, but doesn't disclose other important behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. It provides some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality, filtering options, and pagination behavior. Every word earns its place with zero waste 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 list operation with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and mentions pagination, but doesn't address response format, error handling, or other behavioral aspects that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 schema already fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions filtering by location, capacity, and characteristics, which aligns with the schema parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Lista todas las propiedades vacacionales disponibles') and resources ('propiedades vacacionales'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it lists properties rather than checking availability, calculating prices, or getting details. It explicitly mentions filtering capabilities and pagination.

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 for when to use this tool (to list vacation properties with optional filters), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for listing rather than other operations but lacks explicit 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation ('obtiene'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state this. It mentions retrieving information in a requested language, which adds some context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Obtiene información completa de una propiedad específica') and then elaborates with specifics. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating key points, but this is minor.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and the types of information retrieved, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, response format, or error cases. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which is a missed opportunity for completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('idioma' and 'id_casa'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'descripciones en el idioma solicitado' (descriptions in the requested language), which aligns with the 'idioma' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics. With high schema coverage, 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 the tool's purpose: 'Obtiene información completa de una propiedad específica' (Gets complete information for a specific property). It specifies the verb 'obtiene' (gets) and the resource 'propiedad' (property), and lists the types of information retrieved (characteristics, amenities, location, prices, photos, descriptions). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'listar_propiedades' (list properties), which might be a similar listing 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'listar_propiedades' for listing multiple properties or 'buscar_disponibilidad' for availability checks. There's no indication of prerequisites, such as needing a property ID from another source, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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