hoteloracle

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool compares but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as output format, default sort order, or prerequisites like check-in/check-out dates. It only restates the high-level purpose without deeper insight.

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 concise sentences immediately convey the tool's value and comparison dimensions. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain how parameters like check_in/check_out are used, whether the output is a ranked list, or any required inputs. This leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly for complex queries.

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 is 3. The description adds context that 'price, rating, and popular hotels' are the comparison criteria, which helps interpret budget and hotel-related parameters, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies best neighborhoods in a city and compares areas by price, rating, and popular hotels. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific hotels or prices.

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 intended use is implied: when a user needs neighborhood-level recommendations in a city. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of hotel_search or price_compare, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions one trait: results are 'sorted by lowest price.' However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether a query is required (all parameters are optional), default filtering behavior, result limits, or what the response contains. The lack of detail for a tool with seven optional parameters is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single concise sentence: 'Find the cheapest hotels, sorted by lowest price.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words. It earns every word and is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description is very thin. It does not explain how the tool behaves with no parameters, what the return format is, or how it relates to sibling tools like price_compare or hotel_prices_calendar. The complexity of the tool demands more contextual information than this single sentence provides.

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 parameters are already well-documented with individual descriptions (e.g., 'City or area', 'Check-in YYYY-MM-DD'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting. No parameter is left undocumented or ambiguous.

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's function: 'Find the cheapest hotels, sorted by lowest price.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('hotels') with a differentiating qualifier ('cheapest'), and the sorting behavior distinguishes it from generic search or price comparison tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its scope, so it falls slightly 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hotel_search or price_compare. The description merely states what it does, implying usage for cheap hotel queries but providing no explicit context, preconditions, or exclusions. This is a clear gap with multiple overlapping sibling tools available.

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?

The description implies a read-only status check by mentioning server status and connectivity, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or describe response formats. With no annotations available, the description carries the burden but only partially discloses 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?

The description is extremely concise, using three short phrases to convey the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter health check tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: server status, API connectivity, and supported features. It falls short of specifying exact return values or structure, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds nothing about parameter semantics because none are 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 clearly identifies the tool's scope: server status, API connectivity, and supported features. Although it lacks an explicit verb, it is unambiguous and distinguishes from the hotel-related sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer that it is a general health/status check.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully lists the expected output contents (amenities, reviews breakdown, images, eco-certification, nearby places), but it does not disclose any limitations, error behavior, or how missing data is handled. This leaves some ambiguity for a read tool with five optional parameters.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and efficiently enumerates the key data categories. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description lists the primary return types but does not clarify the role of date parameters or how the query string maps to a specific hotel. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description would benefit from explaining the relationship between inputs and the returned details, as well as when to choose this tool over siblings.

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 provides descriptions for all five parameters (query, country, check_in, currency, check_out), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already explains the 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 identifies the tool as providing deep details for a specific hotel, listing specific content types like amenities, reviews breakdown, images, and eco-certification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as hotel_search or hotel_prices_calendar, but it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'get'), so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving comprehensive information about a specific hotel, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like hotel_search or price_compare. There is no mention of exclusions or condition-based selection, so usage 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'price trend' and 'cheapest week' but does not explain the data source, whether it performs live searches, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is a significant omission for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that both earn their place. The first defines the tool's core behavior, and the second states the user-facing benefit. It is front-loaded and avoids any fluff or 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 the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the parameters interact. It does not describe the response format, what 'price trend' means in practice, or what happens when no parameters are provided. The description is too thin for the 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states; it only reinforces the idea of scanning dates and finding cheap weeks, which the schema parameters (start_date, weeks, nights) already imply.

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's purpose: showing price trends for a specific hotel across check-in dates and helping find the cheapest week. It uses a specific verb/resource combination and mentions 'specific hotel,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like cheapest_hotels, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you want to see price trends or find the cheapest week for a particular hotel. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer instead, so the guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (names, ratings, prices, amenities, deals) and sorting capability, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as result limits, pagination, error handling, or whether a query is required despite being optional in the schema. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. It conveys purpose, return contents, and sorting without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is moderately complete. It states the core use case and return fields, but doesn't address potential pitfalls like missing query behavior, date dependencies, or result limits. It's adequate for a search tool but leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning 'Sortable by price, rating, or reviews' which mirrors the sort_by parameter descriptions. It doesn't provide additional meaning for parameters like query or check_in beyond what the schema already explains.

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's purpose: 'Search hotels in a city or area' with a specific verb and resource. It also indicates return contents (names, ratings, prices, amenities, deals) and sorting behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cheapest_hotels or hotel_prices_calendar, so it's not 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?

The description implies usage for general hotel searches, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools like cheapest_hotels or hotel_details. This falls short of clear contextual 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the content of results (categories and distances) but does not disclose side effects, data freshness, expected query format beyond the schema, or whether the check-in/out dates affect results. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which makes it feel under-specified. While it is concise, it lacks the instructional structure expected of a tool description, so it does not score higher.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, how to invoke it, or when to use it. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent in selecting and using the tool correctly.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds a slight semantic hint by connecting the parameters to nearby points of interest and distances, but it does not significantly deepen understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 what the tool provides ('restaurants, landmarks, transit stations, distances') but lacks an imperative verb like 'list' or 'find'. It clearly relates to a hotel but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like area_guide or hotel_details, making its purpose somewhat vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given for scenarios where this would be preferred over area_guide or hotel_details, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only comparison across booking sites and lists example sites. However, it does not disclose return format, whether it requires dates, or any caveats about data freshness or site coverage, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and scope with no redundant words. It earns its place by naming example booking sites and clarifying the single-hotel scope.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain expected return values and any prerequisites. It does not mention what the comparison output looks like, whether check-in/check-out are needed for accurate pricing, or how optional parameters affect behavior. The core purpose is clear, but the description is not fully complete for agent invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, though it reinforces the 'one hotel' context for the query parameter.

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 ('Compare') and identifies a clear resource ('prices for one hotel across booking sites'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cheapest_hotels by explicitly scoping to a single hotel, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 one hotel across booking sites' clearly implies when to use this tool (when you have a specific hotel and want to compare prices across multiple sites). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can differentiate it from sibling tools like cheapest_hotels or hotel_search.

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