Roraima holiday rentals

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it clarifies that booking and payment happen on the linked page, not through this tool, and it discloses the no-dates fallback behavior. It does not describe the return shape (URL vs. object), but that is a minor 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the fallback case 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?

For a five-parameter, read-only link tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side-effect boundary, and the optional-date fallback. Only the return format (a URL string) is left implicit.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes arrival/departure/guests and clarifies that dates are optional (falling back to the plain listing page), which is marginal added value — 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?

States a specific resource and output ('Link to a listing page with arrival, departure and guests already chosen') and clarifies the guest completes payment on that page, so the agent knows this is a link generator, not a booking tool. It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate against, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Implied usage is clear: call it when you want a prefilled booking URL. The 'Without dates, the plain listing page' clause hints at the get_listing overlap, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or naming of get_quote/search_listings as alternatives.

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 non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the exact field scope and explicitly excluding host contact details, which agents would otherwise assume were included.

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, no filler, with the field enumeration front-loaded and the exclusion ('No host contact details') placed last as a boundary note. Every clause 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 no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does by naming the key fields and the one field category withheld. It stops short of covering error behavior or behavior for missing/closed listings, so it is strong but not airtight.

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 both parameters (listing_id, language enum) are already documented, including the default language. The description's field list describes return content rather than parameter meaning, so it adds no parameter semantics 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?

States a specific resource ('one Roraima listing') and enumerates the returned fields, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_listings by scoping to a single listing, though it never names that sibling 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?

The description itself gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives; the only routing hint ('listing_id from search_listings') lives in the schema, not the description. Usage after a search is implied but not stated, so this is minimum-viable.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value on top: it discloses the error behavior ('answers that the dates are not available when they are taken') and clarifies the output is page-accurate ('as its page shows it') and side-effect free ('not a booking').

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the availability caveat and the booking disclaimer. No filler, though it could be trimmed slightly since the mode names duplicate schema descriptions.

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 compensates by characterizing the return as the total price shown on the listing page and by noting the unavailable-dates response. It omits pagination/format specifics and explicit sibling routing, but for a read-only quote tool the essentials are covered.

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 both parameter groups are already documented in the schema, including the 'booked by nights' vs 'booked by time slots' distinction. The description restates those groupings but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: computes the total price of a stay or time slot at one listing. The two input modes (check_in/check_out vs date/start_time/end_time) are spelled out, though siblings aren't named explicitly. Clear enough to distinguish from get_booking_link via the 'not a booking' note.

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 usage through the two mode descriptions and the 'a quote is not a booking' clarification, which steers an agent away from booking flows. However, it never states when to reach for get_quote versus get_listing or get_booking_link, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit by adding the non-obvious availability semantic (only listings free on the requested nights are returned) and that each result carries a total price. It stops short of noting pagination or default limit behavior.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the verb, resource and scope before the date-filtering behavior. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating that results include a total price and are availability-filtered. For a 7-parameter search tool the coverage is good, though pagination and the limit semantics are left entirely to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including the limit default and location examples. The description paraphrases location, country, dates and guests but adds no syntax or format detail, and never mentions limit or language; baseline 3 is correct.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search Roraima listings') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (town/province, country, dates, guests), which cleanly separates it from the single-item reads in get_listing and get_quote. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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 by the listed filter dimensions and the note that supplying check_in/check_out narrows results to free listings, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_quote or get_listing guidance, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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