Appartements Amrusch

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing what comes back: live availability, an exact total price per apartment type, and a guest-ready booking link. It omits anything about rate limits, authentication, or the response when no apartment is available.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant element (real-time availability and exact total price) is front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 output schema, the description properly compensates by naming the three return elements an agent must know about, which is the right call for a five-parameter read tool. What remains missing is edge-case behavior, such as what is returned when nothing is available or how multiple apartment types are surfaced.

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 80%, with arrival/departure formats, children age ceiling, and language default all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, though it does implicitly tie the call to dates and party composition. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb with a concrete resource and enumerates the deliverables: real-time availability, exact total price per apartment type, and a pre-filled booking link. An agent immediately knows what the call produces. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling find_available_dates, which could be confused with this tool.

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 phrase 'for given dates' implies the tool is used when the guest already has concrete arrival/departure dates, and 'pre-filled booking link for the guest' hints at a conversion step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to find_available_dates for open-ended date discovery or to send_inquiry for follow-up.

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 and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are capped at 12 options and each option pairs an arrival/departure with available apartment types, which tells the agent the search is fuzzy rather than exact.

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 tight sentences: the action and the example come first, the result shape second, with no filler. Slightly awkward nesting of the quoted example, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, fully specified four-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, an example input, and a summary of the return shape. What remains missing is the sibling differentiation that would let an agent choose confidently between this and check_availability.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by framing from/to as a search window rather than exact dates and tying nights/persons together in one example query. That clarifies how the four required parameters combine into a single search.

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: search for free stays in a date range, and adds the return shape (up to 12 arrival/departure options with free apartment types). However, it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling check_availability, so an agent must guess which one to pick.

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 example phrasing "a week in July for 4 people" implies a fuzzy search use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With check_availability in the sibling set, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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 is fully covered. The description adds that the payload is static descriptive content rather than dynamic data, but says nothing about response shape, size, or whether the data is cached/static per language.

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, and the content list is dense but readable. Slightly list-heavy, but every element names a real topic an agent might query.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter info tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide relevance. It could note the language parameter's effect, but the schema already carries that.

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 single enum parameter (language, default en) is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions the language parameter or what it affects, so it adds no meaning beyond the 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?

Names the specific resource (Appartements Amrusch) and enumerates the exact content domains returned: apartment types, inclusions, rules, season dates, location, distances, contact. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like check_availability and send_inquiry, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 static 'about the property' questions rather than availability or booking. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of pairing it with check_availability, and no exclusions.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the double opt-in flow: the guest gets a confirmation email and the family sees nothing until the guest confirms. It also clarifies that no booking or payment results, which is exactly the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before writing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the consent precondition, then the confirmation flow. No filler and no repetition of schema field names beyond what the precondition requires.

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 13-parameter open-world write with no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics: consent, double opt-in, and non-binding outcome. It could add what the agent receives back (e.g., that a confirmation is pending) to be fully self-sufficient.

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 69% and the schema itself documents name, dates, message, language, apartment_type, and guest_consent, so the description's mention of name/email/consent is largely reinforcing existing structure. It adds no meaning for the undocumented parameters (email, phone, adults, children), which is the appropriate baseline when the schema carries most of the weight.

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 ("Send a NON-BINDING inquiry to the Amrusch family on behalf of the guest") and immediately signals the write/non-committal nature, which distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings check_availability, find_available_dates, and get_property_info.

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?

Gives a clear gating condition — only use when the guest has explicitly agreed and supplied name and email — plus the negative scope "No booking and no payment is made." It does not explicitly tell the agent to run check_availability or find_available_dates first, which is the one obvious missing routing hint.

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