Fursat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload ('canonical detail URL plus a short summary'), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid/nonexistent slug, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 waste; the core action is front-loaded and the return-value note follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 no output schema, the description covers input meaning and what comes back, which is most of what an agent needs. The only gap is unspecified behavior when the slug does not resolve to a 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the slug format with an example. The description only restates 'by its URL slug' and adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Get details for a single Fursat home') with the lookup key named ('by its URL slug'), which naturally contrasts with the plural search_listings sibling. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings, but an agent can tell what it does unambiguously.

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 'by its URL slug' phrasing implies this is the follow-up step once a slug is known from search_listings, so usage is inferable. However, it never names the alternative, states when not to use it, or explains what to do if only a name/query is available rather than a slug.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful eligibility behavior — only published homes, and only those rated 4.3+ on Google — which an agent could not infer from the schema. However, it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, empty-result behavior, or auth requirements, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: identity, return/filter behavior, and usage trigger. Front-loaded and free of 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what comes back; it says published, 4.3+-rated homes but not what fields a listing carries or how results are ordered. For a read-only search with fully documented optional filters, this is close to sufficient but not fully complete.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in detail. The description only echoes the 4.3 rating floor (the minRating default) and restates the state coverage, adding no syntax, matching, or combination guidance beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Fursat's curated catalog of vacation homes') and bounds the domain to Northeast India and the Himalayas. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_listing or start_inquiry, though the distinction is fairly self-evident from the names.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this when a traveler asks about accommodation suggestions in this region,' and lists concrete states to help the agent recognize that context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., for a known property, use get_listing).

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 burden and does well: it discloses the return value (a wa.me URL), what the prefilled message contains, and the critical domain fact that booking happens off-platform on WhatsApp. It stops short of stating that no server-side state is created or whether the link is stable/reusable, which would matter for repeated calls.

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?

Four sentences ordered as what-it-does, what-it-returns, when-to-use, and business context. No repetition of the name or title, and every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value explicitly. All five parameters are documented in-schema and the one required field (slug) is unambiguous, so nothing needed for a correct call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that dates, party size, and notes are all optional inputs that get folded into the prefilled message. That tells the agent why to supply them and that omitting them is safe, beyond the schema's per-field notes.

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 ("Generate a WhatsApp inquiry link for a Fursat home") and immediately names the concrete artifact produced ("a wa.me URL"). The phrase "after seeing it in search results" implicitly separates it from search_listings/get_listing, so an agent can place it in the flow without opening another 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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: "Use this when a traveler wants to actually book or inquire about a specific home after seeing it in search results." It also rules out an expectation ("there is no online checkout"), but never explicitly names get_listing or search_listings as the prior-step alternatives.

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