Cape Winelands Visit Planner

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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete value by naming the data surfaced (hours, tasting fee, booking requirement, features, contacts, booking link), telling the agent what it will get back. It does not address missing-ID behavior, keeping 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?

A single well-formed sentence with the return scope front-loaded after the verb. Every clause earns its place by naming a data category the agent will receive, with no filler.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right amount of context. The only material gap is id provenance/format and error handling for an unknown id.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'id' parameter. It only says 'by id' without stating the id's format, source (e.g., from search_wine_farms results), or whether it is a slug or numeric identifier, which is insufficient compensation for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns full visitor details for one wine farm by id') and enumerates the returned content fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search_wine_farms (listing) and plan_winelands_day (planning), which an agent can tell apart without opening schemas.

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 'by id' implies this is a lookup for a single already-known farm, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus search_wine_farms or plan_winelands_day, nor does it mention 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context, which it does: it discloses that the tool checks farm opening hours on arrival and computes booking needs, and describes what is returned. It does not mention failure behavior when a farm is closed, but the added behavioral detail is meaningful.

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, both front-loaded with the core action and the operational detail. No filler; every clause conveys behavior the agent needs.

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?

Despite nine parameters, a nested start object and no output schema, the description conveys the return contents (arrival times, distances, booking needs) and the two operating modes. Remaining gaps, such as closed-farm handling or route-failure behavior, are minor for a read-only planner.

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 56%, and the description adds real value for one gap by explaining that farm_ids can be left empty to auto-pick via area. However, several parameters (start_time, stops, road_factor, avg_speed_kmh, minutes_per_stop) are only documented in the schema and get no additional meaning from the description. A baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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 ('Plans a self-drive winelands day') and enumerates the concrete operations: ordering farm visits, checking opening on arrival, and returning arrival times, distances and booking needs. This clearly separates it from the sibling lookup tools (get_wine_farm, search_wine_farms), which retrieve rather than plan a route.

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 final sentence explicitly resolves the main decision: 'Pass farm ids, or leave empty to auto-pick farms in an area,' tying each mode to its trigger. It gives clear context but does not name alternatives or state when-not to use this tool versus search_wine_farms.

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=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that only farms 'open to visitors' are returned and that filters combine, but it says nothing about result ordering, the default page size (limit=10 in schema is unannotated), or total counts. Useful additions, but not rich behavioral context.

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, zero padding. The identity of the resource is front-loaded and the filter enumeration is packed into one dense clause that earns every word.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description should say at least a little about what comes back and how limit/paging behaves. It covers the filter surface well but leaves return shape and page size implicit, so an agent cannot reason about result volume.

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 only 43%, so the description has to carry real weight, and it mostly does: it explains what area, open_at/open_on, features, max_tasting_fee and near are for, and enumerates valid feature values (restaurant, kids, dogs, cellar-tour, wheelchair, picnics, organic), which is the only source of enum-like guidance given 0 enums. Gaps remain: limit is never mentioned and the near sub-fields (lat/lng/radius_km) get only 'distance from a point'.

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?

Specific verb plus resource and a scoped domain: 'Searches Cape Winelands wine farms open to visitors'. The filter list further sharpens what kind of search this is. It never names the siblings, though, so the agent must infer on its own that get_wine_farm is for a single farm and plan_winelands_day for itineraries.

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 filter enumeration implies the usage scenario (find candidate farms matching constraints), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to the sibling tools. The agent gets a reasonable hint but must decide unaided between this and plan_winelands_day or unmet_request.

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 adds real context beyond the annotations: 'Free to call' signals no call-budget cost, and 'We review these every week and build the most-requested data first' discloses that this is an asynchronous request with no immediate data returned. Nothing contradicts readOnlyHint=false (a submission does create a record) or openWorldHint=false; auth and rate-limit details are absent but low-risk here.

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, front-loaded with the cost signal and then the qualifying condition, then the outcome. No restatement of the tool name and no wasted clauses.

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 fully documented, no-output-schema submission tool, the description covers purpose, trigger and what happens after submission. It could be slightly more complete by stating that no data is returned synchronously, but the weekly-review sentence conveys that implicitly.

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 explains need, region and context fully. The description reinforces the one-sentence constraint on the required field but adds no meaning beyond the schema for the optional region and context parameters, 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 states a specific action (describe a missing data need) and resource (South African cost, rate, rule, price or place not covered), and explicitly frames itself as the fallback when the sibling calculators don't cover a need. It is immediately distinguishable from bond_repayment, municipal_rates and the other siblings, which are lookups rather than submissions.

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 trigger: use this when needed South African data is not provided by 'none of these tools,' and enumerates the kinds of gaps that qualify. It does not name the specific sibling domains, so an agent still has to reason about what the siblings already cover before deciding to fall back here.

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