AgniGateway Marketplace

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not reveal whether the check is read-only, what happens if the offer is unavailable, or any required permissions or side effects.

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, focused sentence that is immediately understandable. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: no output schema, no behavioral details, and no usage context relative to the sibling tools. It would benefit from clarifying that it expects an offer ID from a prior search.

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% since source_id has a description. The tool description adds the context of 'specific offer' but does not explain how source_id is obtained or what format it should be in, so it does not significantly go beyond the schema.

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 ('Check') and the resource ('current availability and price for a specific offer'). It distinguishes itself from search_travel and initiate_booking, though it overlaps somewhat with get_offer_detail; 'availability' adds specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that it should be used after obtaining a specific offer or before booking, nor does it contrast with get_offer_detail or search_travel.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns a bundle_value_score and merged summary, and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention any permissions/errors, which would make it fully transparent.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It states the purpose, gives examples of addons, and names the return values, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 adds some contextual meaning by naming example addons (co-working pass, airport transfer) that map to the addon_types parameter, but it does not add significant syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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: 'Get a composed bundle for a hotel' and explains what that bundle consists of (hotel product plus addon services). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_availability or get_offer_detail.

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 it (when a hotel bundle with addons is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools could be differentiated by their names, but no direct comparison is made.

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 must carry the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not specify return format, potential errors, or what 'enriched details' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word contributes to 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it does not clarify what 'full enriched details' includes or the response structure, leaving some ambiguity.

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% and the source_id description already explains it comes from search_travel results. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the parameter, 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'full enriched details for a specific travel offer', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_travel or check_availability. It also specifies the required identifier (source_id).

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 after obtaining a source_id from search_travel, as stated in the parameter description. It provides clear context for when to retrieve offer details, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool logs the transaction for commission tracking and returns a booking_url for the user to complete the reservation, clarifying this is initiation, not final booking. However, it omits error handling, auth requirements, or idempotency, but these are not critical for a simple link generator.

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, each with a distinct purpose: action, side effect, and return value. No fluff or redundancy, front-loaded with the main action.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, the side effect, and what to return. It is complete for the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter described as 'Offer source_id to book.' The description only adds 'for an offer,' which does not meaningfully enhance the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description does not exceed 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 states the tool's function: 'Generate a tracked affiliate booking link for an offer.' It uses specific verbs (Generate, Logs, Return) and identifies the resource (affiliate booking link), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on searching, availability, or details.

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 this is the booking step after an offer is selected ('for an offer'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_availability or get_offer_detail. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, so usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the enriched output (digital nomad scores, wifi quality, direct booking links) but omits whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and permissions.

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, information-dense sentence that starts with the core action and resource, then lists valuable output features. Every word contributes to understanding, with no 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should describe return structure more thoroughly. It mentions enriched results and specific scoring fields but omits pagination, sorting, error handling, or how the 'filters' object is used. The nested parameter lacks a top-level description, creating ambiguity for agents.

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 67% (query and limit have descriptions, filters does not at the top level). The description adds context by giving a natural-language search example and result enrichment details, but it doesn't explain the 'filters' object beyond what the schema already provides. It partially matches the product_type enum by naming hotels, tours, bundles, but omits flights and addons.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('travel offers'), listing categories (hotels, tours, bundles). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_offer_detail or check_availability, which are more focused on specific offers or availability checks.

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 this tool is for broad searching of offers but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_offer_detail or initiate_booking. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving context implied rather than explicit.

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