In Viaggio alle Canarie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a critical non-obvious behavior: the tool does not expose prices, and hotels are only sold within packages. This goes beyond simply describing the search function and helps manage expectations.

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 highly concise, using two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides a key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no 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 simple search tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the search scope and the important price limitation. It does not explicitly state return format, but that is reasonably inferred. Overall, it is complete for typical usage.

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 50%, with only 'nome' and 'zona' having partial-match descriptions. The description lists all four filter dimensions (isola, zona, stelle, nome) but adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the enum values or the semantics of stelle_min, leaving some gap.

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 searches catalog hotels by island, zone, stars, or name. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerca_offerte and lista_escursioni, making its 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 description implies when to use the tool: when searching for hotels by the listed criteria. It also provides an exclusion by stating that prices are not exposed and hotels are only sold within packages, guiding the agent away from using this tool for pricing queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses critical behavioral traits: all offers are active, price is 'from' per person based on 2 people, and URLs are non-deducible and must be copied exactly. This prevents a common failure mode and adds significant value beyond the structured schema.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and includes a detailed warning about link usage. While the warning is somewhat verbose, each part serves a critical purpose. It earns its place without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

The description covers the essential context for selection and invocation: package composition, pricing basis, and the link protocol. Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, this is adequate. It doesn't describe the output structure, but that's not required for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides; the pricing mention is redundant with budget_max's 'per person' description. Thus, no extra semantic value is added.

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 searches for package offers (flight+hotel+car/transfer) for the Canary Islands, using the specific verb 'Cerca' and resource 'offerte pacchetto'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerca_hotel, making the 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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching package offers) and gives an explicit rule: if the 'link' field is missing, call this tool again rather than deducing it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like cerca_hotel or dettaglio_offerta, so it stops short of full when-not 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the optional month behavior (annual overview when omitted) and lists the output fields. For a read-only data tool, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 in Italian, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the optional behavior. No filler 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?

The tool is simple and well-scoped. The description covers purpose, output content, and the key optional parameter. No output schema exists, but the enumerated fields compensate. Sibling tools do not overlap semantically.

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 parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the 'mese' omission behavior and adds output field context, but does not provide additional parameter-level details 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides monthly climate data for a Canary Island, enumerating the data categories (air/sea temperatures, rain, sunshine, wind, season, advice). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that cover hotels, offers, excursions, and guides.

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 context is implied: use for climate queries. The description gives guidance on omitting 'mese' to get the annual overview, but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or any 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists content categories and does not explain the return format, whether a parameter is required, how matching works, or any limitations (e.g., what happens if no excursion matches). This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema or annotation 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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Dettagli pratici di un'escursione') followed by a concise list of covered topics. It is efficient with no redundant words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated into purpose and 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?

For a simple read-only info tool, the description adequately communicates the type of information returned. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., whether one of id or nome is required, what the response object looks like, and how it differs from similar tools). Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these omissions prevent higher completeness.

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 both parameters (id and nome) with descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on output content instead. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states that the tool provides practical details of an excursion, listing specific fields (difficulty, minimum age, suitability, starting point, what to bring, included services, notice days). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dettaglio_offerta' (offer details) and 'info_pratiche' (general practical info), as it is specifically for excursions and enumerates its content.

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 when a user asks for practical details of a specific excursion, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'info_pratiche' or 'dettaglio_offerta'. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the choice somewhat implicit.

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. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the returned link must be copied exactly as-is and never reconstructed or abbreviated. It also implicitly indicates this is a read-only detail retrieval by specifying the output contents. No contradictions with annotations (none present).

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 concise: one sentence listing the output fields, followed by a single impactful IMPORTANT instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and the key warning is front-loaded with emphasis. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 single-parameter detail tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the expected return fields. It covers the essential information an agent needs to interpret the response. It lacks specifics on error handling or edge cases, but those are not critical for this simple 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 already provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'id' with its type and description (UUID or slug). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states it returns all details of a specific offer, enumerating the exact contents (description, highlights, hotel, included excursions, savings, link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cerca_offerte' (searching offers) by focusing on a single offer's details.

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 'Tutti i dettagli di una specifica offerta' provides clear context for when to use the tool (when a specific offer ID is known). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous. The IMPORTANT instruction about the link adds a practical usage guideline.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the parameterless default behavior and the categories, but it does not explain how filters behave when combined, what happens on no matches, or the response format.

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, front-loaded with the topic list and default behavior. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple and read-only; the description covers the main use cases (filter by category/keyword or get all FAQs). It omits filter-combination logic and return structure, but the schema supplies parameter details, and no output schema is present.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'without parameters' behavior and does not provide additional syntax or filter combination details 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?

The description identifies the tool as a FAQ resource covering a clear set of topics (booking, payment, flights, etc.) and states that it returns all ~40 FAQs when called without parameters. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on hotels, offers, and excursions.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: without parameters, all FAQs are returned, implying filters are used for targeted queries. The topic scope is explicit, but no alternatives or exclusion cases are mentioned.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only lists content topics. It does not mention return format, optional filtering behavior, or confirm the tool is read-only. Some behavior is covered in the schema, but the description itself adds no transparency.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and it lists all relevant topics without redundancy. Every part is informative, and there is no wasted wording.

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?

The tool is simple with 0 required parameters and a rich schema, so the description covers the main purpose adequately. However, it omits any indication of the response format or fallback behavior when both parameters are omitted, which would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description's enumeration of categories largely mirrors the categoria enum, adding little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not introduce new parameter semantics.

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 provides practical travel information for the Canary Islands, enumerating specific topics (documents, currency, language, time zone, etc.). This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like clima_isola or info_zona.

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 by listing content categories, so an agent can infer it is for practical travel queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like faq or info_zona, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the conditional behavior (with/without zona) and the types of content included, but does not mention error handling, return format, or what happens if an invalid zone is provided.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately noting the key optional behavior. 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the main conditional. It could be more explicit about the return structure and edge cases, but it is adequate given the low complexity.

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 50% (zona has a description, isola does not). The description supplements the schema by clarifying that omitting zona yields the list of zones, adding meaningful context beyond the raw parameter definitions. It does not add detail for the required isola 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 clearly states the tool provides editorial content for a zone (beaches, restaurants, attractions, trails) and explicitly describes the fallback behavior when no zone is given. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on hotels, offers, excursions, etc.

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 explains when to omit the zona parameter (to get the list of available zones), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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 full burden. It discloses the return type (full, updated text) but does not mention response format, potential errors, or any read-only/non-mutating assurance beyond the name 'leggi' implying reading.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then parameter sourcing. 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains the content returned (full text) and when to use it. It could be slightly more detailed about response structure, but given simplicity it's adequate.

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 documents the slug parameter with examples (100% coverage). The description adds value by instructing that the slug comes from lista_guide, which helps the agent obtain a valid value.

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 returns the complete, updated text of a site guide. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's for answering general questions about islands, areas, itineraries, periods, and budget, and references lista_guide for slug retrieval.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('Usare per rispondere a domande generali...') and how to obtain the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for specific queries, so it falls 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the catalog contains duration and indicative price, but does not disclose behavior such as whether all excursions are returned when no filters are applied, pagination, or read-only status. The description is honest but not deeply transparent.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose ('Catalogo escursioni') and includes all essential details without waste. Every phrase 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?

Given the simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output fields (duration, price) and filter dimensions. It omits optional parameter behavior and return structure, but for a list tool the description 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly names both parameters ('isola' and 'categoria') and lists the valid category values. This compensates well for the lack of schema-level descriptions, though the island values are only available in the enum.

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 provides a catalog of excursions filtered by island and category, with duration and indicative price per person. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dettagli_escursione (details) and riepilogo_catalogo (summary) by focusing on the list itself.

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 browsing excursions by island or category, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like dettagli_escursione. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implicit.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns only slug, title, and description (metadata), not full content, and points to leggi_guida for full content. It also reveals the total count (35), which is useful context beyond the basic function.

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 efficient and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose ('Indice delle 35 guide editoriali del sito'). It includes a useful enumeration of guide types in the first sentence, and the second and third sentences are direct and purposeful. There is no filler, though the first sentence is slightly dense.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns (slug, title, description), its scope (35 guides), and its relationship to leggi_guida. The schema covers the filter parameter, so the description is complete enough for effective use.

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 fully describes the single optional parameter 'categoria' with an enum and a clear description ('Filtra per categoria (opzionale)'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, but the schema alone is sufficient, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the tool as an index of 35 editorial guides, enumerating the content types (island guides, itineraries, etc.) and stating that each entry has slug, title, and description. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool leggi_guida by explicitly directing users there for full content.

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 'Per il contenuto completo usare leggi_guida' (use leggi_guida for full content), which is an explicit when-not-to-use and names the alternative. This makes the tool's scope clear: use it for the index/summaries, not for full guides.

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 must convey the tool's behavior. It implies a read-only overview, but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or returns only summary data. The lack of a side-effect statement keeps this at a 3.

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 sentence with a colon separating the main purpose from the specifics, followed by a short usage note. Every phrase adds value, and it 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (counts per island, min price, first departure) and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing.

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 and an empty schema. The description adds no parameter-related meaning because there are none. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4.

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 that the tool provides an overview of the active catalog, including number of offers per island, minimum price, and first available departure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerca_offerte and dettaglio_offerta by focusing on aggregate summaries. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', so it falls 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?

It provides a clear use case: answering the question 'cosa avete?' (what do you have?). This gives context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or what happens if both/neither parameters are supplied. It lists feature categories but omits response format and side-effect 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the core purpose ('Servizi e caratteristiche') and follows with a compact illustrative list. There is no filler 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?

The description enumerates return content (pool, spa, wifi, etc.), partially compensating for the missing output schema. However, it does not describe the response structure or behavior for empty/conflicting parameters, leaving gaps for a two-optional-param tool with no annotations.

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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage (nome partial match, hotel_id UUID alternative), so the description does not need to reiterate them. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no parameter-level nuance 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Servizi e caratteristiche di un hotel del catalogo' with concrete examples, which distinguishes it from siblings like cerca_hotel and dettaglio_offerta. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'restituisce' or 'recupera'), relying on the noun phrase to imply retrieval.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only defines the content ('piscina, spa, wifi...'), leaving the agent to infer applicability; the only boundary is the phrase 'del catalogo'.

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