privatewellnessrooms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — results are restricted to *published* listings — but does not say what happens for an unpublished or nonexistent slug (error vs empty).

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ("published") precedes the selector.

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?

Adequate for a trivial one-param read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, but the unexplained name/resource mismatch ("listing" vs "wellness room builder") and the missing not-found/unpublished behavior leave small but real gaps for an agent deciding among siblings.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema description coverage with a regex pattern and length bounds, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates "by its slug" and adds no formatting or lookup nuance 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?

Specific verb ("Get one") plus resource ("published wellness room builder") and selector ("by its slug"), with the "published" scope stated up front. Minor ambiguity: the tool is named get_listing and its siblings are list_*/search_listings, yet the description calls the resource a "wellness room builder", so an agent must infer these are the same object.

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?

Implies a single-item lookup keyed by slug, which contrasts implicitly with the sibling search_listings, but it never names the alternative or states when to prefer it. No exclusions (e.g., unpublished or missing listings) are given.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that counts are restricted to published entities and that a last-modified timestamp is included, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about caching freshness or response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause names something the tool actually returns.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does: three counts plus a change timestamp. It could be slightly more complete by noting the response is an aggregate summary object, but nothing essential for calling it is 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'published' clarifies that the implicit scope is fixed rather than caller-filterable, which is a small value-add.

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 a specific verb (get) and specific returned resources (counts of published builders, places, categories, plus last-changed timestamp). This clearly separates it from siblings such as list_categories or list_places, which return records rather than aggregate counts.

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 statement of when to use this versus the listing tools, nor any exclusions. The aggregate nature implies 'use for summary counts,' but the agent must infer that entirely.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that counts are attached to each category — it says nothing about ordering, cardinality, or whether zero-count categories are included, which is the kind of context that would raise this score.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb leads and the informative payload detail follows immediately.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the definition covers the essentials for a zero-argument reference listing. The only residual gap is that 'wellness room builder counts' is left undefined (count of rooms vs. builders) and no ordering or completeness guarantee is given.

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 takes no parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on output content.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List categories') plus the distinguishing payload detail that each entry carries a wellness room builder count. It does not differentiate against siblings like list_places or list_sources, but the resource noun is distinct enough that an agent can select it by name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly the reference-lookup for categories, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other list_* tools, though the disjoint resources make mis-selection unlikely.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and closed-world nature are covered structurally. The description adds only the filtering condition ('have wellness room builders') and does not say whether the list is static/cached, how results are ordered, or what each entry contains.

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 no filler, and the qualifying constraint is front-loaded so the agent reads the important scope information first.

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 zero-param read-only lookup with rich annotations, the essentials are present. Because there is no output schema, the description should ideally spell out what each returned entry looks like and whether the three geographic levels are returned as a hierarchy or a flat list; that gap is the only meaningful omission.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It could have clarified that the geography set is implicitly scoped (e.g., to the account or catalog), but no parameter semantics are at stake.

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 a concrete verb and a concrete resource set (countries, regions, cities) plus a qualifying condition ('that have wellness room builders'), so the agent knows it returns a filtered geography list rather than arbitrary data. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_categories and list_sources by resource type, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/lookup call for available geographies before searching listings. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as search_listings or get_listing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include license and refresh metadata, which is useful return-content context, but says nothing about result size or ordering.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the payload detail trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at the return shape, and it does by naming the license and refresh fields per source. For a no-param read-only listing tool that is close to sufficient, though a note on whether the list is exhaustive would complete it.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to explain an input surface that does not exist.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('where the wellness room builder data comes from'), and further specifies what each entry contains (license and refresh). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_categories or list_places, which enumerate different resource types.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to learn provenance/licensing of the dataset. But there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements and no reference to alternatives, though with a zero-parameter singleton listing tool the risk of misselection is low.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — results are limited to *published* builders — but says nothing about result set size, ordering defaults, or the paging envelope beyond what the cursor parameter's schema already states.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though for an eight-parameter tool with pagination the terseness starts to shade into under-specification rather than pure 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?

With full schema coverage, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient — an agent can call it correctly from the schema alone. The remaining gap is that nothing signals the paginated response shape (page.nextCursor) or that unpublished builders are excluded, which the description only half-conveys via "published".

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 docs are unusually rich (typo fallback, sort defaults, cursor reuse rules, country 400 behavior), so the schema carries all semantic load. The description's phrase "by text, place and category" only loosely maps onto the q/city/region/country/category group and adds no detail beyond it.

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?

Specific verb ("Search") plus a clearly bounded resource ("published wellness room builders") and the three match dimensions. The word "search" combined with the plural resource makes it distinguishable from get_listing and the list_* siblings without opening a schema, though the description never explicitly names that contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for querying without a known ID, versus get_listing for a specific item. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no mention of list_categories/list_places as companions for resolving slug parameters, and no exclusions.

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