OlaChillBus — Schengen Charter Coaches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that, reinforcing it with "Does not submit a request." That negative-scope statement is real added value beyond the annotations, since it prevents the agent from assuming a side effect. It does not describe the shape of the returned form, but with no output schema and a trivial zero-parameter surface, that gap is minor.

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 zero filler, front-loading what is retrieved and following with the key negative scope. Nothing is repeated from the schema or 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?

For a zero-parameter, non-destructive read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to decide to call it and what to expect conceptually (a request form and details). Only the exact form of the returned content is left unspecified, which 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline for a no-parameter schema applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the call as simply retrieving form material.

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?

"Get the request form and details needed for a verified private coach quote" names a specific verb (get) and a specific resource (quote request form/details), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_charter_countries / list_charter_vehicles tools, but those cover clearly different resources, so misselection risk is low.

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 establishes context (preparing a verified private coach quote) and sets an explicit boundary with "Does not submit a request," telling the agent this is a preparatory step rather than an action. It stops short of naming the hypothetical submit tool the agent should use afterward, so the alternative is implied rather than 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful filtering constraint (only active, non-paused markets), but says nothing about ordering, completeness of the result set, or whether the list is cached/refreshed.

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 compact sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema required, the definition supplies what an agent needs to decide to call it. Only the exact return shape (array of names vs. objects with codes) is left implicit.

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 of 4 applies; the description correctly implies the call needs no arguments to scope the result.

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 (countries) with a clear scope qualifier ('Schengen-region ... offered by OlaChillBus'). The siblings (get_charter_quote_instructions, list_charter_vehicles) cover different resources, so confusion is unlikely, but the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from them.

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 'active ... excludes paused markets' implies when the result is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of an alternative tool for paused or non-Schengen markets.

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 annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: the information is guidance rather than live availability, and it contains no pricing. That prevents the agent from overpromising real-time inventory or quotes and is exactly the kind of context structured annotations cannot express.

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?

It is a single compact sentence, with the scope restriction placed after the positive statement, where it is easy to find. The phrasal structure ('Vehicle capacity and large-luggage guidance in a supported country'), which omits the verb, is the only weakness, but it is clear and has no filler.

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 tool that has one parameter, complete schema coverage, and read-only annotations, this description covers what the tool returns at a high level. There is no output schema, so a hint about the shape of the vehicle data would help; even so, nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 schema fully documents the single `country` parameter, including how to obtain a valid slug, and the description adds nothing on top of that. With 100% schema coverage and no formatting, validation, or example detail in the description, the baseline score 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?

The description names a specific resource: vehicle capacity and large-luggage guidance for a country. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from its siblings, and the clause 'no live inventory or price' further separates it from the quote-related tools. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list', which keeps it short of a 5, but the purpose is 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 negative boundary ('no live inventory or price') implies where the tool does not apply, which helps callers route away from `get_charter_quote_instructions`. However, the description never states a positive trigger, such as 'call this after list_charter_countries when the user needs luggage or capacity details', so the agent has to infer the when-to-use condition.

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