BRONLA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description meaningfully adds that no reservation is made and that the check compares against existing blocked nights ('tileDisabled'), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not note any rate limits or auth requirements.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before listing parameter formats and return values. The parameter-format sentence overlaps the schema, which is minor redundancy rather than waste. Structure is clean 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?

For a read-only availability check with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, the date conventions, and the no-booking guarantee. Return fields are also enumerated even though the output schema already defines them, so 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the accepted date formats and the 'check_out is not counted as a night' rule. The description restates this same content rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a given listing ('e'lon') is free within a date range. The listing-level framing plus the listing_slug parameter helps distinguish it from the hotel-level sibling check_hotel_availability, though that sibling is never named. Clear purpose, but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 clarifies that nothing is booked and that it only compares against existing occupied days, which implies a read-only pre-check use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over check_hotel_availability or search_rentals, nor any prerequisites beyond the parameter format. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing further: no indication of what the response includes (rates? room types? the referenced booking IDs?), no auth or rate-limit context. The 'bron ID'larini' phrase hints at extra behavior but is never explained.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. It wastes little, though the unexplained booking-ID clause is dead weight rather than useful 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only profile. What is missing is routing guidance against the very similar sibling check_availability, which for a 6-parameter search tool is a meaningful 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (including date formats and guest counts) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'dates and guests' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so 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?

The description names a concrete verb (tekshiradi/checks) and resources (bo'sh xonalar/available rooms for a date and guests), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling check_availability, and the trailing 'bron ID'larini tekshiradi' (checks booking IDs) muddies the scope rather than sharpening it.

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 check_availability, search_hotels, or get_listing_details. The agent is left to infer the routing from the name alone, which is a real risk given the near-duplicate sibling check_availability.

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: it writes to the DB and may create a payment link/prepayment record, auth arrives via MCP OAuth and the token is never a tool argument, use_wallet is currently disabled, and the non-idempotent warning is explained in concrete user-facing terms (booking may already exist).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the remaining sentences each carry a distinct constraint (auth, wallet, availability, retry). It is moderately long and restates some schema fields (listing_type), but the density is justified by the tool's risk level.

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 destructive, non-idempotent booking mutation, the description covers auth flow, prerequisites, consent requirements, retry hazards, and payment side effects, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds domain meaning the schema does not: listing_type semantics, that space_ids is mandatory for hotels, that check_out is a departure day not counted as a night, and that use_wallet is currently disabled. These clarifications genuinely improve correct invocation.

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 (creates a booking) and explicitly scopes it to two listing types, house (dacha) and property (mehmonxona), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_rentals or check_availability. An agent can identify the operation's intent 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?

Explicitly states when to call — only after the user has seen object, dates, guests and payment terms and given clear consent — plus the prerequisite to check availability before every call and the exclusion of auto-retrying after a timeout. This is strong, actionable guidance with both when and when-not conditions.

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 cover read-only/open-world, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: up to 10 images are attached to the result as image content while their URLs appear in `images`, max_images=0 suppresses images, and the response has no ready-made `price` field (pricing arrives via `payment`/`paydaylist`, with blocked_dates and prepayment percentage). That is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait that prevents wrong invocation.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers parameters, response contents, the pricing caveat, and image behavior. Every paragraph is useful, though the pricing/image notes could be tightened slightly and the multi-line layout is more verbose than strictly needed.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still enumerates what the payload contains (description, address/map, capacity, amenities, rating, price, blocked_dates, online booking) plus the image-content behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: listing_slug is the `slug` field from search results, listing_type is house/property, and max_images controls whether images are embedded in the result versus only listed by URL. This goes beyond the schema's own text.

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: returns full details and images for a single listing, identified by slug. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search tools (search_rentals/search_hotels) and the availability tools, so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: this tool is for viewing one listing in detail, not for comparing multiple listings with images (search results already include images). It also routes vacancy questions to check_hotel_availability and exact free-date questions to check_availability.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that payment status is included in the result, which is useful context, but it doesn't cover pagination behavior, auth requirements, or result limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient sentence with no waste. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the action verb more prominently, but it is well-sized for a one-parameter 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 a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, a 100% covered schema, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It only lacks a brief note on pagination behavior or when this tool is preferred over siblings, which would make it fully self-contained.

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 'page' parameter is documented as 'Natijalar sahifasi, 1-100.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the correct baseline when 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 specifies a clear verb (ko'rsatadi / shows) and resource (bronlari va to'lov holatini / bookings and payment status) scoped to the current Bronla user. It is distinguishable from the read-only siblings search_hotels and check_availability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. Only the non-English language makes it slightly less immediately scannable.

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 'Joriy Bronla foydalanuvchisining' (the current user's) implies authentication context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus check_availability, search_hotels, or create_booking. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the accepted date formats, that availability data is only returned when dates are provided, and how the results feed create_booking.space_ids. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, then date format, then the booking handoff. Slightly fragmented across lines but every sentence 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?

For a 12-parameter search tool with a full schema, full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential extras: date format and the workflow link to create_booking. Return-value explanation is not needed since an output schema exists. Nothing critical is missing, though sibling routing guidance would strengthen it.

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 all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the date formats the description repeats. The description adds no parameter meaning the schema lacks, so 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 verb and resource ('Mehmonxona qidiradi' = searches hotels) and adds a conditional behavior (returns matching available rooms and space_ids when dates are supplied). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_rentals, but never names the very close siblings check_availability / check_hotel_availability, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 that supplying dates triggers availability results, which implies the main usage path, and it describes the downstream booking handoff. However it never states when to prefer this tool over check_hotel_availability or search_rentals, and there are no explicit 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 annotations covering read-only and open-world access, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the compact return fields, max_images behavior, and the critical rule that providing only one date silently ignores the filter and triggers an error asking for both dates.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details, return format, and a key constraint. Some parameter format details duplicate the schema, but every sentence largely 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 12 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. It covers the critical date-pairing behavior and return shape, though it omits explicit guidance against sibling tools like search_hotels or 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: check_in/check_out must be supplied together, the error behavior when only one is given, and the sort mapping and max_images range.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching dachas/rentals from Bronla.UZ by dates and guests. It distinguishes from get_listing_details by saying each listing need not be opened separately, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_hotels or check_availability.

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 gives a clear alternative (use this result instead of opening each listing with get_listing_details) and explains the important when-not/error condition for check_in/check_out. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus search_hotels or check_availability.

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