LodgeDeck

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral transparency. It states the tool is deterministic ('No model'), consistent ('same input always gives the same answer'), honest about unknowns ('when the governing rules are unknown it says so rather than guessing'), and free. It does not detail error handling for invalid inputs, but the key behaviors are well covered.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and outputs, the second adds critical behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value.

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 mentions key output components (verdict, requirements, cautions, confidence, citations) which is helpful. However, it does not explain the exact format or structure of the response, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema; it only mentions 'Jurisdiction slug or City, ST string' and enum values which are already in the schema. The free/no-API-key note is tool-level, not parameter-level.

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's purpose: 'Deterministic verdict on whether a short-term rental is allowed in a jurisdiction for a given use type.' It specifies the verb (check eligibility), resource (short-term rental in jurisdiction), and scope (including requirements, cautions, confidence, citations). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like get_lodging_tax and get_str_rules.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a deterministic, free, no-API-key-needed eligibility check is required. It mentions behavioral traits like always giving the same answer and being honest when unknown. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it compared to sibling tools.

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 the structure of returned fields (value, source, confidence) and notes that unconfirmed fields are null. It also states the tool is free and requires no API key. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or behavior for invalid inputs.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose stated upfront. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return structure and input format. However, it could mention error handling (e.g., what happens for invalid cities) or provide a brief example response.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by providing an example slug ('san-diego-ca') and clarifying that both slug and 'City, ST' strings are accepted. This 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 explicitly states that the tool returns lodging/occupancy tax for a jurisdiction, listing specific fields (state rate, local tax, combined rate, cleaning fee taxability, marketplace collection). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_str_eligibility and get_str_rules, which focus on different aspects of short-term rental regulations.

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 mentions the tool is free and requires no API key, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks statements about when not to use it or direct comparisons with sibling tools.

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 transparently details the return format: every field is an object with value, source, confidence; unconfirmed fields are null with 'unverified', never guessed. This goes beyond basic purpose.

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 waste. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 is quite complete. It explains return format, fields, and confidence handling. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or rate limits, but free tool likely has none.

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% with a clear description of the 'city' parameter. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate. Baseline 3.

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 returns short-term rental rules for a jurisdiction, listing specific fields. It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rules vs eligibility or tax.

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 indicates it returns rules for one jurisdiction, implying the need to specify a jurisdiction. It adds 'Free, no API key needed' as usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use vs 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 exist, so description carries full burden. It states 'Free, no API key needed' and describes read-only behavior (list with coverage count). No side effects mentioned, but sufficient for a list operation.

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, front-loaded with key info, every sentence earns its place. 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?

Given one optional param and no output schema, description covers usage, filter, and auth status. Could mention pagination if list is large, but not necessary for typical use.

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% (single param with description) and description repeats the same info ('case-insensitive filter over city and state name'), adding no new meaning beyond schema. 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?

Description clearly states 'List every US short-term-rental jurisdiction LodgeDeck covers' with specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting this is the first call to learn slugs.

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 says 'Call this first to learn which slugs the other tools accept,' providing clear usage context. Also mentions optional filter, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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