OlaHome Japan Property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered for free. The description adds real value with the 'approved public' qualifier, warning that non-approved or private listings will not be returned, but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or whether the record is cached or live.

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 thirteen-word sentence with the action and the scoping constraint front-loaded; nothing is redundant and nothing is missing that could fit this economically.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete: it says what is fetched and which records are eligible. The only meaningful gap is the miss/error path when the ID does not resolve to an approved public listing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does partially by naming the identifier a 'public ID' (distinct from any internal key). It does not state the expected format or length, so an agent still learns most about the parameter from the schema's type and maxLength=120.

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 ('Retrieve'), a specific cardinality and resource ('one approved public listing'), and the addressing key ('OlaHome public ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling search_properties, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: 'by its OlaHome public ID' suggests the caller must already hold an ID, which hints at searching first. It does not explicitly say 'use search_properties to find an ID' or state what happens when the ID is unknown or the listing is not public.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description reinforces this with "does not create a booking" and adds topical scope (services plus legal limitations), but says nothing about response shape, length, or whether the legal content is jurisdiction-specific.

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 sentence with the positive scope front-loaded and the negative boundary appended; no filler or redundancy. Every clause carries 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 zero-parameter, non-destructive informational tool with no output schema, stating the two content domains is nearly sufficient to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that the description does not characterize the return format, which matters slightly more here because no output schema exists.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. A baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless definition.

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 ("Describe") with a named resource scope ("OlaHome services and legal limitations"), which is clearly distinct from the property-oriented siblings get_property_details and search_properties. It does not explicitly name those siblings to route the agent, but the topical split is inferable from the wording.

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 clause "does not create a booking" implicitly marks a when-not boundary and steers the agent away from transactional intent. However, it never names an alternative tool for booking or for property lookups, so the when-to-use guidance is only 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 read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-annotation context: listings are approved/public and availability is not real-time, though it omits pagination, result format, and other operational details.

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 short sentences, front-loads the search scope, and immediately follows with a useful freshness caveat. There is 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 six-parameter search tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It provides the domain and freshness caveat but leaves filtering semantics, listing types, and pagination behavior to inference.

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 17% across six parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning, constraints, or enum guidance. It does not compensate for the sparse 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 uses a precise verb ("Search") and resource ("approved public OlaHome listings in Japan"), so the agent can identify the general operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_property_details, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for finding approved public listings and adds a caveat about availability not being real-time. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with get_property_details.

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