Kids Stay

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds useful behavior: the response contains evidence notes, sources, and a verification date, and the output rendering must be text/Markdown only with no map or place-card widgets. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 filler: the first front-loads the retrieval purpose and contents, and the second gives a crisp rendering constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how it is selected, and how it must be presented. The absence of detailed response formatting is acceptable given the low complexity of the tool.

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%, and the schema already explains that slug is the facility slug included in search_hotels results. The description only repeats 'slug指定' and adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?

The description states a specific action ('返します') and a concrete resource: facility conditions with per-facility evidence notes, kids' equipment, access, sources, and verification date, retrieved by slug. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling search/list tools, which operate at a different level of granularity.

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 clear context: call it with a slug to get the full verified detail payload, and then present the result as text/Markdown links without widgets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns counts and feature pages, and the phrase '主要エリア' hints at a possible scope limitation. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or data freshness; with no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 that front-loads the return content and closes with the intended use case. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

This is a parameterless read-only list operation with strong annotations. The description fully specifies what it returns and when to use it; no invocation complexity is missing. An agent can confidently call and interpret this tool without further documentation.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline for 0 params is 4; no additional parameter detail is needed.

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 states a specific verb (返します) and a concrete resource: prefecture-level facility counts, major areas, and editorial area feature page list. It also frames the tool as a pre-search rough targeting aid, which distinguishes it from search siblings. This is above the minimum viable and 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?

The description explicitly says to use it before searching for rough targeting (検索前の当たり付けに使います), providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or give exclusions, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 safety behavior is covered. The description adds that the full, complete set of definitions is returned (全定義) along with facility counts, which is mild but real added value; it says nothing about result size or caching.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists the payload contents. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the four fields each entry carries (id, label, target age, facility count). For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, that is nearly everything an agent needs before calling 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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no arguments whose semantics need explaining, and the description correctly spends no space on input.

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 (返します/returns) and resource (子連れ条件の全定義), and even enumerates the returned fields (id・ラベル・対象年齢・該当施設数). It is unmistakably a reference-list tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_areas.

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?

「検索に使える」 implies the returned condition ids feed into search_hotels, which is useful usage framing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus search_hotels or list_areas, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context. It does: the returned page URL is the facility's detail/booking page, and the presentation must be plain bullets plus Markdown links with no map or place-card widgets. It does not cover result ordering behavior or pagination beyond what the schema 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core search capability before the keyword fallback and output-format rule. Each sentence carries distinct information; density is high but nothing is obviously redundant.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers search facets, the meaning of returned URLs, and presentation constraints. Remaining gaps (default behavior with no filters, how conditions interact with area/age) are minor and largely inferable from the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: conditions are described as verified facilities with a cross-reference to list_conditions (53 types, AND semantics implied), and keyword is framed as a partial-match name lookup usable as an alternative entry path.

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 (日本の宿を検索) plus the exact facet set (エリア・子どもの年齢・価格・検証済み条件), and cross-references list_conditions for the 53 condition IDs. It also implicitly separates itself from get_hotel by noting keyword is the path when the hotel name is already known.

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 when to use keyword (已知宿名) versus the facet search, and points to list_conditions to resolve condition IDs. It gives no explicit 'when not to use' case (e.g. when to prefer get_hotel for a single known facility), so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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