Ski Limone Travel Guide

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists specific return components (health, timestamps, counts). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior on error. For a simple health getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the key output types. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a reasonable summary of what is returned. It mentions three distinct data points but does not elaborate on the structure of 'health' or the exact format of timestamps. For a health endpoint, this is nearly complete, falling just short of fully specifying the 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter detail needed in the description, and the schema already covers the absence. The description correctly adds no parameter information, which 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 'Get AI API v2 health, freshness timestamps, and content counts' clearly identifies the specific resource (AI API v2) and the type of data returned. It is not a tautology and distinguishes this tool from sibling detail getters like get_hotel_details or get_restaurant_details by focusing on an infrastructure health endpoint.

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 usage is implied by the description: use this when you need AI API health status, freshness timestamps, or content counts. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Given the sibling tools are for different resources, the context makes the intended use fairly clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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 must carry the full burden. The description merely restates the tool's purpose ('get detailed information') without disclosing additional behavior such as read-only nature, return format, errors, or authentication requirements. The verb 'get' implies a read, but no extra context is added.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it essentially paraphrases the tool name/title without adding new information. It is not wasteful, but it fails to earn its place by providing any additional insight.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes or how the slug is obtained. The tool is simple, but the vague description leaves the agent without enough context, especially since sibling tools share a similar pattern.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'slug' with a clear description, so the description adds no extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate or clarify 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 clearly states the tool's function using the verb 'get' and resource 'hotel' (e.g., 'detailed information about a specific hotel'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_restaurant_details by targeting hotels, but does not explicitly mention the slug parameter or any unique scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage when hotel details are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a slug from search_content), and no exclusions. It is not misleading, but the context is minimal.

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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it gets information, but does not mention return format, potential errors, authentication needs, or any side effects. While 'Get' implies read-only, the absence of details about behavior limits transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's function. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary filler, 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?

For a simple one-parameter get tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks context about what 'detailed information' includes, how the slug is used, or potential error scenarios. No output schema exists, so the description could have compensated by describing expected return values, but it does not.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'slug' with a clear description ('The restaurant's URL slug'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about the parameter, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific restaurant'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other entity types like hotels or wineries. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely restates the tool's purpose without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like get_hotel_details. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves current snow conditions, but does not mention output format, update frequency, or any access limitations, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral 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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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, zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what the tool does and for which area. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide on 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters; the baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing to explain 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource: 'current snow conditions and weather for Limone Piemonte ski area'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hotel or restaurant details.

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 the use case: when snow conditions and weather for Limone Piemonte are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, leaving the context to be inferred.

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 only says 'Get detailed information', which is a near-tautology of the title and does not disclose permissions, response format, error behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, because there are no annotations, the description should ideally provide context about what 'detailed information' includes or any safety characteristics. The current description is adequate but leaves the agent without a clear picture of the tool's full behavior.

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 schema provides full coverage for the single parameter 'slug' with a description, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a village place or activity', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_hotel_details or get_restaurant_details. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, selection criteria, or exclusions. The context in the name is implied but not explicitly connected to other entity-specific 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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get detailed information' without confirming read-only nature, potential side effects, or any other operational details.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is adequate to understand the tool's role. However, given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail about the returned information would enhance completeness, but it's not critically 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'slug' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a specific winery', making it distinct from sibling tools like get_restaurant_details or get_hotel_details. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the tool's action without providing usage context.

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 disclosure burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state that it returns a list of matches, lacks pagination info, or clarify that it does not modify data. The behavior is minimally transparent but not fully explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope with no redundant phrases. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits guidance on when to use it versus sibling get_* tools and does not describe the return format or any search limitations. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and usage context to be 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by mapping the enum value 'posts' to 'blog posts', clarifying a potentially ambiguous term. It also reinforces the content-type scope via its listed examples.

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 the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource as 'all Ski Limone content', listing concrete categories (hotels, restaurants, blog posts) that distinguish it from the sibling get_* detail tools. This clearly states what the tool does and sets it apart.

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 a general search use case but does not explicitly say when to choose it over the sibling get_* tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context signals show sibling tools for specific details, so the intended usage is inferred but not articulated.

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