aloha.fyi Hawaii

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds value by mentioning the curated nature (540+ spots) and category range, which informs the agent of the tool's scope without contradicting 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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the action and scope, plus one sentence on usage. Every sentence is valuable and focused.

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 no output schema, the description provides enough context: coverage area, number of spots, categories, and example queries. It does not describe return format, but this is acceptable 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description provides example queries but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema for parameters like limit, query, category, neighborhood.

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 finds restaurants and food spots in Hawaii, specifically Waikiki and Oahu, listing example types like coffee shops and poke bars. It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which focus on food.

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 explicitly provides example user queries that trigger use (e.g., 'where should I eat in Waikiki'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the examples are sufficient and siblings are not food-related.

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 idempotentHint=true, so the description's main contribution is clarifying the source (Groupon) and sorting order (cheapest first). This adds some value beyond annotations but does not disclose potential rate limits or other behavioral traits.

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 action, and contains no filler words. Every sentence serves a clear purpose in explaining the tool's function and usage.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and what to expect in results. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though an example or note on pagination could enhance 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all three parameters having descriptions. The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the score stays at 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 finds budget deals and discounts for Hawaii activities, with specific details like returning Groupon deals sorted cheapest first. It includes the verb 'find' and resource 'budget deals', and the title and sibling tools help distinguish it from unrelated tools like restaurants or weather.

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 explicitly says 'Use when users want affordable Hawaii experiences or budget travel tips,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for comparison, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description complements annotations by listing specific return fields (temperature, precipitation, etc.) and the forecast period. Since annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, the description adds richer behavioral details without contradiction.

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 efficient, with each sentence adding value. It front-loads the purpose and follows with concrete examples and explicit return fields. No superfluous 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, and output fields. It is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps include missing units and error handling, but these are not critical for basic 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?

The description aligns with the schema but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. It mentions island and forecast length in context, but the schema already describes both parameters adequately.

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 specific verbs ('retrieves' implied) and resources ('weather, forecast, surf/wind') and explicitly states the target ('any Hawaiian island'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like restaurant finders or deals.

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 concrete usage examples and implied context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the examples and sibling list provide sufficient guidance. An explicit exclusion statement would push to 5.

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, indicating no side effects. The description adds that the tool returns items 'picked from our live catalog,' providing sourcing context. It does not disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits or authorization needs, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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-loading the core purpose and output format, followed by example usage. No redundant or unnecessary information, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 (3 optional parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps are apparent.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters (vibe, island, max_budget_per_person) with enums and defaults. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so a 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 it builds a same-day or trip itinerary for a Hawaiian island, specifying the exact output (morning activity, lunch, afternoon, dinner) from a live catalog. It differentiates from sibling tools like find_hawaii_restaurants or search_hawaii_tours by focusing on holistic day planning.

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 concrete example queries ('plan my day in Oahu', 'what should I do Saturday in Maui') that illustrate when to use. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, the examples and context make the intended use 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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the database has 579+ events from 70+ venues and is updated weekly, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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: purpose, data scope/freshness, and usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds 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 low complexity (3 simple params, no output schema, good annotations), the description sufficiently covers the tool's function, scope, and usage hints. It could mention output format but that is implicitly a list of events. Overall complete for 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?

Schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (query and days_ahead) and island is implied by enum. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already does the work, but no extra value from description.

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 finds upcoming events, concerts, festivals, and nightlife across all Hawaiian islands, with data freshness and scope. The title 'Hawaii Events & Concerts' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like restaurants, deals, weather, tours, and day planning.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when users ask what's happening in Hawaii or want entertainment options.' While it does not list when not to use or direct alternatives, the sibling tool list and context signals imply appropriate use cases. Slight lack of exclusion criteria, but still 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results include affiliate booking links and come from multiple platforms, which is behavioral context 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 two sentences: first states the tool's action and scope, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary information, front-loaded with essential facts.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: it returns tours from specific sources with affiliate links. It doesn't detail pagination or data structure, but given the tool's simplicity, it is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description mentions keyword, island, price range which aligns with schema parameters but adds no new meaning 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 it searches Hawaii tours and activities by keyword, island, price range, and lists the specific sources (Viator, GetYourGuide, Klook, Groupon). It differentiates from siblings like find_hawaii_restaurants and search_hawaii_events.

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 explicitly advises: 'Use this when users ask about Hawaii tours, activities, or things to do.' It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the context of sibling tools provides natural boundaries.

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