BostonVacay Directory

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the behavioral bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: affiliate:true marking, that links are non-ad booking paths, and the NOT_FOUND behavior for unknown ids.

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 dense sentence with the 'Read-only' lead front-loaded, followed by an enumeration of return contents and the NOT_FOUND clause. It is information-rich; the long enumerated list is slightly heavy but every element 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, but the description still usefully previews contents and the NOT_FOUND case. The missing coverage of three booking parameters is the main incompleteness for a 4-param 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description carries the burden for adults, check_in, and check_out, yet it says nothing about them. Only the id param is clarified, and that via the schema itself. The three undocumented params are a clear gap.

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 (get) and resource (full details for one BostonVacay listing by id), clearly distinct from sibling search_listings which finds listings. The scope and identity are fully clear.

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 detail-fetch step after a search, and the id parameter guidance ('Listing id from search_listings') reinforces the workflow. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus search_listings or rules out other entry points.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The leading 'Read-only' largely duplicates that, though 'top-level' adds a genuine scoping detail. No auth, rate-limit, or caching behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with essentially no waste, and the safety qualifier is front-loaded. It is close to optimally sized for such a small tool, though 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a parameterless read tool needs little else. The description is sufficient to call it correctly, though it could note its role as the discovery entry point relative to search_listings.

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, which is the baseline 4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify. Schema coverage is 100% and the parameterless signature matches the description's simple enumeration semantics.

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 categories) with useful scope detail (directory-level, includes listing counts). An agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from the siblings (search_listings, list_filters, get_listing), leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this enumerates the category vocabulary, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison against list_filters, which could be confused as a similar enumeration tool.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the leading 'Read-only.' is redundant. The description does add genuine value with 'each with listing counts, plus notes on how each is derived', disclosing the shape/nature of the returned data beyond the 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the content categories and their consumers. The opening 'Read-only.' wastes a few words by repeating the annotation, but otherwise every clause 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it does enough by naming the filter categories and the derived counts/notes. For a zero-parameter read-only reference tool, an agent has what it needs 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly does not invent arguments.

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 concrete resource — filter values (areas/neighborhoods, price tiers, amenities, tags) with listing counts — and ties it to the sibling tool search_listings, so an agent can tell it is the metadata/reference lookup rather than a search. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', but the enumeration of contents makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

'Values usable in search_listings' implies the usage context (discover valid filter values before searching), which is reasonable guidance. However, it never states when to call this versus list_categories or search_listings directly, and gives no prerequisites or ordering advice, so usage 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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: booking links are provider links (Expedia/Viator/Klook) rather than ads, affiliate:true links earn commission at no cost to the user, and results are not ranked by commission, plus the caveat that live rates appear on Expedia and not in the result.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information (filters, return shape, affiliate disclosure, check-in behavior). However, it is delivered as one dense run-on paragraph, which makes the affiliate and return-value content harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 17-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, the get_listing handoff, return contents and the booking-link business model. Since an output schema exists it need not describe returns in detail, yet it does describe them anyway; only a few filter/pagination parameters go unaddressed.

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 a middling 59%, and the description compensates by enumerating the filter dimensions (keyword, category, area, price tier, amenities with examples, tag, distance from lat/lng or another listing) and clarifying semantics the schema lacks, notably that check_in/check_out produce date-specific Expedia hotel links rather than live rates. It leaves sort, page, limit, adults, radius_km and has_booking_link unexplained, so it is not complete.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and resource (BostonVacay's curated directory of Boston businesses), and even enumerates the business types covered. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_listing for full text/hours/FAQ, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It gives clear positive conditions (keyword/category/area/price/amenity/distance filtering) and points to alternatives: get_listing for full text and list_filters for valid tags and areas. There is no explicit 'when not to use this' beyond the get_listing handoff, so it falls short of a 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 cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent and destructive=false, so the safety profile is free. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the affiliate/commission relationship on booking_url and warning that Viator confirms final price, availability and cancellation terms before payment, which is real behavioral context an agent needs. It omits rate limits or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loads the read-only marker and purpose, then layers return fields, date semantics, sort default and the affiliate disclosure in a logical order. It is dense but each sentence carries information; only the return-field enumeration slightly overlaps with the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, yet it still summarizes them usefully. For a zero-required-parameter search tool the guidance is nearly sufficient; the only gap is no routing hint toward the sibling listing/category/filter tools.

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 only 40% across 10 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate. It does explain the date-range semantics and the sort default ordering, but page, limit, currency, max_price, min_rating and free_cancellation are left with no added meaning beyond their self-evident names, leaving the compensation partial.

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 and resource ('Live search of bookable tours and activities') plus a precise geographic and source scope (Boston, MA from Viator's partner API). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_listings, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone when this beats the generic listing search.

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 explains the default sort behavior and that start_date/end_date restrict results to products Viator lists as available, which implies when the date filters matter. However, it never names an alternative (search_listings, list_filters) or states when-not to use this tool, leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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