BangkokVacay Directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation and 'top-level' constrains the result set, which is useful context, but the description says nothing about return format, ordering, or whether results are cached/static.

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 with zero filler. The resource and its scope are stated immediately with nothing extraneous to trim.

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 trivial zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves the return shape (flat list vs. nested tree, ordering) and the relationship to search_listings unexplained. 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free by describing a fixed top-level category listing.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top-level business categories') scoped to the BangkokVacay directory, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_listings tool or explain their relationship.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the sibling search_listings as an alternative. An agent must infer that this is a navigation/discovery call used before searching listings, which is plausible but not 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the filtering policy ('Only quality listings... publicly active, with a real name and a real description (50+ chars)') and that results are sanitized public data. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate limits, but for a read-only search tool this is a strong disclosure of behavior 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then return shape, then the quality-filter constraint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it searches) is front-loaded.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, result fields, and the quality threshold that determines what comes back. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 q, page, limit, and category are already documented with examples and defaults. The description only reinforces that q and category can be combined ('and/or'), adding marginal meaning over the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search BangkokVacay business listings') and adds the two axes of search (keyword and/or category) plus the returned fields. This is plainly distinguishable from the sibling list_categories, which enumerates categories rather than searching listings.

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 'by keyword and/or category' implies both filters are optional and combinable, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over list_categories or when not to use it, so guidance is 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.