Thác Hòa Bình Camping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The 'no reservation is created' clause adds domain-specific reassurance that a camping contact lookup will not book anything, but the description says nothing about freshness of the data, caching, or what happens on a failed lookup.

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 short clause with the substantive content (what you get) placed first and the negative side-effect note second, so nothing is buried. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly blunts the opening but wastes no words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the only real burden is telling the agent what comes back, and the description enumerates contact details, location, day-use hours and overnight hours. That is sufficient for an agent to call it confidently and use the result.

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 meaning for the description to carry. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty, fully closed 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 names the specific resources returned: contact details, location, and day-use/overnight hours. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from siblings like get_camping_price_table or list_camping_offers, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and never names those siblings.

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: the payload (contact info, location, hours) makes the when-to-use case self-evident, and 'no reservation is created' implies this is informational rather than transactional. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling tools or any prerequisites.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the table 'may contain unverified values', which tells the agent to caveat the data. It says nothing about not-found behavior or whether unpublished IDs are rejected, so it stops at adequate.

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 action and scope front-loaded and the data-quality caveat appended after a semicolon. Nothing is wasted, though the caveat could be phrased more sharply as a separate clause.

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 with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key data caveat. It still omits error/not-found behavior and whether the return is a single table object, which an agent would want before calling.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the ID identifies one published price table, which is more than the bare string schema says, but it gives no format, source, or example of a valid ID, leaving the agent to guess.

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 and resource: 'Look up one published camping reference-price table by ID'. The resource is clearly distinct from the siblings (contact, addons, offers), so an agent can tell what it returns. It falls short of 5 only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

'by ID' and 'one ... table' imply the calling shape, and 'published' hints that only published tables are reachable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling list/get tools, and no guidance on what to do when an ID is unknown or the table is unpublished.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — these items require a direct quote, implying no upfront pricing — but says nothing about the return shape or ordering, so it remains only adequate.

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 no filler; the scope qualifier follows the resource list rather than burying it. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back and how it relates to sibling list tools. It states what is listed but not the shape of results or the boundary against list_camping_offers, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent choosing between the two.

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 for the description to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading or redundant parameter language is present.

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 ("List") and enumerates the resource categories covered — picnic rentals, transfers, stream/beach packages — plus a scope qualifier ("require a direct quote"). It is clearly distinct from get_camping_contact and get_camping_price_table, though it never explains how it differs from the similarly named list_camping_offers.

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 "require a direct quote" implies when this list is relevant (quote-based items rather than standard-priced offers), which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_camping_offers, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful caveat that returned prices are reference values rather than live inventory, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or locale/currency 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?

A single compact sentence with the catalog scope front-loaded and the pricing caveat trailing. Nothing is redundant, though the semicolon construction packs two distinct facts into one clause.

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-required-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and its pricing caveat. It falls short on the only parameter and on any indication of result set size or absence of filtering besides category.

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 carries more burden than usual, and it never mentions the single 'category' parameter by name. It does implicitly map its three nouns (stays, day-use offers, packages) onto the overnight/day_use/day_combo enum members, which partially compensates, but the 'all' default is undocumented.

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 and resource ('List public camping stays, day-use offers and packages') and adds a scoping qualifier ('reference prices, not live booking inventory') that separates it from the pricing and add-on siblings. It does not explicitly name the siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'reference prices, not live booking inventory' implies this is the discovery/catalog tool rather than a booking or exact-quote tool, which is useful context. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, so the agent must infer routing.

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