Lodging Decision

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

With no annotations, the description compensates thoroughly: it discloses deterministic behavior, rejection of protected-characteristic content, no persistence, alpha quality, and unauthenticated operation. It also details the output components.

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 opens with a crisp summary of what the tool does, then layers scope, exclusions, and caveats in a logical order. No wasted words; each sentence conveys necessary context.

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 description covers functionality, scope, exclusions, output components, and limitations. Given the complex nested schema and lack of annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to call the tool and what to expect, though it could be more explicit about error handling or edge cases.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that candidate_listings are caller-supplied and outlines the decision scope (budget, location, amenities, etc.), but does not detail the meaning or constraints of individual parameters beyond what their names imply in the schema. Partial compensation.

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 ranks caller-supplied lodging candidates and returns a deterministic, evidence-backed recommendation with score breakdown, tradeoffs, risk flags, missing information, and confidence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search, booking, and persistence tools.

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 explicitly states the tool does not search inventory, book, or persist data, making clear the user must supply candidate_listings. It also sets expectations for alpha quality and verification before booking, though it doesn't name alternative tools.

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