Fursat

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

No annotations provided. The description states what the tool returns (canonical URL and summary) implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. With zero annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, no fluff. Clearly states purpose and what is returned. Efficiently communicates essential 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return format (canonical URL + summary). It could be more detailed about the summary content, but overall is sufficiently complete for the complexity.

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% with one parameter described. The description repeats the schema's explanation but adds an example slug. Since the schema already describes the parameter, this adds marginal value, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states it gets details for a single listing by URL slug and returns a canonical URL and summary. It implicitly distinguishes from 'search_listings' (which would be a search) but could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools 'search_listings' and 'start_inquiry' exist but the description does not mention them or provide context for selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only published homes with Google rating ≥4.3 are returned, but does not mention default values (minRating default 4.3), ordering, or that the tool is read-only. Some behavioral traits are implicit but not fully transparent.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines functionality and constraints, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted 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?

For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key usage context (region, rating filter). It does not repeat schema details but effectively summarizes when to use. A missing element is explicit mention that all parameters are optional, but that is clear from the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only reinforces the region and quality filter. No parameter-specific elaboration is provided.

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 clearly states that the tool searches a curated catalog of vacation homes in a specific region (Northeast India and Himalayas) with a quality filter (Google rating ≥4.3). It uses specific verbs ('Search') and resource ('curated catalog'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_listing and start_inquiry.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('when a traveler asks about accommodation suggestions in this region') and lists the covered states. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling contexts imply alternatives.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a wa.me URL with a prefilled message, and explains the booking flow (no online checkout). This is transparent for a non-destructive tool, though it could mention whether any side effects (e.g., logging) occur.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It follows a logical flow: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and a key context note.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the tool's purpose, output (wa.me URL), and parameter usage constraints. It could optionally specify the exact type of return value, but the context is sufficient for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains that 'slug' is the URL slug of the listing, 'notes' should be under 280 chars and may include specific requests, and checkIn/checkOut should only be included if the guest specified dates. This provides usage constraints and formatting guidance that the schema alone does not.

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 clearly states it generates a WhatsApp inquiry link for a Fursat home, specifying the action (generate), resource (WhatsApp inquiry link), and distinguishing from siblings (get_listing, search_listings) by focusing on the inquiry action for bookings.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a traveler wants to actually book or inquire about a specific home after seeing it in search results.' It also notes that bookings happen on WhatsApp, providing context. While it does not explicitly list when NOT to use or contrast with siblings, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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