LastMinuteDeals Booking API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states that it adds and returns the sum, implying a pure function with no side effects. It doesn't detail error handling, but that is minor for a numeric operation. The description is transparent about its core 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 sentence with zero redundancy. It conveys the full purpose and result in a compact format, front-loading the 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 tool with two numeric parameters and a simple output, the description is fully complete. It specifies inputs, the operation, and the return format (sum). No additional context is needed to call 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 coverage is low (0%), and the description provides the meaning of the two parameters ('a' and 'b') by stating they are the numbers being added. This adds value beyond the type-only schema, making the parameter intent clear.

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 the action ('Adds') and the resource ('two numbers') clearly, and the result ('returns the sum'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from the unrelated siblings (echo, server_time).

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 purpose makes the usage context obvious (use when you need to add two numbers). However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, or any exclusions. For such a simple tool, this is acceptable but not robust.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the exact behavior: the tool returns the provided text unchanged. The behavior is trivial and fully disclosed, though it does not mention edge cases like empty strings or special characters.

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 concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this trivial complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. An agent can determine exactly what to pass and what to expect back without any additional context.

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%, and the parameter is already described as 'Text to echo back.' The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Echoes the provided text back to the caller.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add and server_time, which perform entirely different operations.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is so self-evident that usage is implied. Sibling tools (add, server_time) are unrelated, so no exclusionary guidance is necessary.

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 provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It specifies the output format (ISO 8601) and timezone (UTC), which are the key behavioral traits. It does not mention error behavior, but with zero parameters, there are no failure modes to disclose. The description is accurate and adds sufficient context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes all necessary details (format and timezone) with zero waste. It is structured optimally for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description is fully complete. An agent can invoke the tool correctly without any additional information. The description covers what it does and what it returns.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 as per rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and the schema is empty. The description correctly implies that no input is required.

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 a specific action ('Returns') and a specific resource ('current server time') with format and timezone. The siblings 'add' and 'echo' are completely unrelated, so there is no ambiguity or need for differentiation.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident, providing clear context for when to use it. There are no similar alternatives among siblings, so no exclusions or when-not guidance is required. However, it does not explicitly state conditions for use beyond what the description implies.

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