The Hill Kinabalu Rooms

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

Reinforces and adds context beyond annotations: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and explicitly states it does not create or hold a booking. Provides constraints like maximum 30 nights and that it returns suitable room-type options and room count.

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, each with a clear role: purpose, prerequisites, constraints, outcome. No superfluous text; information is front-loaded.

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?

Covers all essential aspects for a read-only availability check: what it does, required inputs, constraints, return value description, and behavioral nature. Output schema exists to detail return structure, so no gap.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds practical constraints: date format, check-out after check-in, max stay 30 nights, and meaning of total_pax, adding value 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?

Clearly states the tool checks room availability at The Hill Kinabalu for an exact stay and party size, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_rooms or generate_booking_link. However, it does not explicitly differentiate usage from list_rooms.

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 instructs to collect check_in_date, check_out_date, and total_pax from the user before calling, never invent missing values, and provides date format and stay constraints. Also notes it is a read-only snapshot and does not create a booking, guiding when to use.

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?

Discloses that the tool validates availability, derives values server-side, creates no booking, and holds no inventory, adding context beyond annotations which indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Single paragraph is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists and all parameters are fully described, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, and constraints comprehensively for a validation-and-link-generation 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% but description adds crucial meaning: room_slug must come from check_room_availability, total_pax includes adults and children, and dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. Also explains server-side derivation of other fields.

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 it generates a verified checkout link for The Hill Kinabalu, specifying required inputs and referencing a sibling tool (check_room_availability) for the room_slug, distinguishing its purpose.

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 states when to use (only after guest supplies required fields), what not to do (never invent values), and that the server validates and derives values, with reference to sibling 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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds further context about what information is retrieved and explicitly states limitations (no availability check, no enquiry submission), enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Three sentences, tightly packed with information. Front-loaded with main action and scope. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it retrieves, when to use, and what it does not do. No unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and a likely output schema (not shown), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, scope, and usage context. It addresses all relevant aspects: content retrieved, use cases, and explicit exclusions. Sibling tools are distinct, so no confusion.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description cannot add parameter semantics, but it is not required. Baseline of 4 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 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'The Hill Kinabalu’s official public wedding venue and 2026/2027 package information', listing detailed contents. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with rooms/booking rather than weddings.

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 states when to use ('when someone asks about weddings, wedding packages, the event venue, guest capacity, package pricing, or how to enquire') and what it does not do ('does not check date availability or submit an enquiry'), providing clear decision support.

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. The description adds context beyond annotations by noting the tool does not check availability, a key behavioral limitation for an agent. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, each serving a purpose. The first sentence states the action and output; the second provides usage guidance and a limitation. No extraneous words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and limitations completely. It explains what data is returned and when to use (or not use) the tool, leaving no significant gaps.

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 no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Instead, it enumerates the return fields (room types, rates, guest capacity, etc.), which adds meaning beyond the empty input schema. Schema coverage is 100%, and description compensates well for the lack of parameters.

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 retrieves 'The Hill Kinabalu’s official current room catalogue' with specific details (room types, rates, capacity, etc.). The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'room catalogue' make the purpose unambiguous. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed, but the description fully captures 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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: 'when someone asks which rooms The Hill Kinabalu offers or what its room rates are.' Also clearly states what it does not do: 'This catalogue does not check availability for specific dates,' providing important usage boundaries.

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