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 discloses return content (canonical URL plus summary) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor any behavioral traits beyond the return.

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 a single well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no superfluous 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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose and return value. It could explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but it is still fairly complete for a straightforward get tool.

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 a description for 'slug' (URL slug), but the description adds a concrete example ('pudung-farm'), which adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details for a single Fursat home by its URL slug', which is distinct from sibling tools like 'search_listings' (multiple results) and 'start_inquiry' (different action).

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 implies use when you have a URL slug and need details for a specific listing; siblings handle searching or starting inquiries, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as read-only (searching and returning results) but doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds constraints (only published homes, rating >=4.3) but lacks disclosure of data freshness or error 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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers core functionality well (region, rating filter, use case). It lacks explicit info on return structure or pagination, but maxResults is in schema. Slight gaps in completeness, but adequate for a search tool.

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%, but the description adds value by providing example queries ('mountain view Cherrapunji') and listing specific state slugs, which go beyond schema descriptions. It reinforces defaults (minRating 4.3) and usage patterns.

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 the tool searches a curated catalog of vacation homes in a specific region (Northeast India and Himalayas) and filters by Google rating. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_listing for specific listing, start_inquiry for inquiry) by focusing on search and suggestion.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when a traveler asks about accommodation suggestions in this region' and lists relevant states. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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 full burden, and it discloses the key behavior: it returns a wa.me URL, the message is prefilled with listing identity and optional dates/party size/notes, and booking actually happens on WhatsApp rather than through an online checkout. It does not cover edge behavior like invalid slugs or error handling, but this is sufficient for a simple link-generation tool.

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 focused sentences with no wasted words. The output and purpose are front-loaded, and the note about bookings happening on WhatsApp is the kind of high-signal context that earns its place.

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 link-generation tool, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what is returned, and how the broader booking flow works. It lacks explicit error/edge-case information or direct comparison with sibling tools, but neither is essential for correct invocation.

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, but the description adds functional context by explaining that the optional parameters (dates, party size, notes) become part of the prefilled WhatsApp message. This helps the agent understand how the parameters are used together, which the schema alone does not convey.

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: 'Generate a WhatsApp inquiry link for a Fursat home.' It clearly states the output (wa.me URL with prefilled message) and distinguishes this tool from the sibling lookup tools by making its booking/inquiry purpose 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?

It explicitly says to use this when a traveler wants to book or inquire about a specific home after seeing it in search results. This gives clear context and implies search_listings is the upstream step. It stops short of naming the alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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