hemmabo_search_availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description goes well beyond: it discloses anonymous access (no Bearer token), rate limiting, that it never places holds or reserves dates, fails closed on stale calendar sync, returns conflict details and alternative windows, and explains exact outcomes for guests exceeding max and min-nights violations. This is rich behavioral context that annotations do not capture.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavioral details. No fluff or repetition. The complexity of the tool justifies the length, and the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 four parameters and a rich set of edge cases, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, what it returns (available flag, conflict details, alternatives, failure modes), how guests alter behavior, min-nights rule, anonymous access, rate limits, and the guarantee that the verdict matches the host API. Nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly 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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond each parameter's schema definition. For guests, it explains the nuanced behavior of omitting versus passing a count, and how it affects alternative windows and capacity. For checkIn/checkOut, it clarifies that stay length is derived from their relation and that min-nights violations are handled via reasonCode. This substantially enriches parameter understanding.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('a specific property'), and scope ('for the requested dates'). It clearly distinguishes from hemmabo_search_properties (search vs. availability) and hemmabo_booking_quote (availability before quote), making the tool's role unambiguous even without reading 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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this tool after the user has selected a property from hemmabo_search_properties and wants to confirm availability before getting a quote.' It also states when NOT to use it ('Do NOT use for general browsing') and names the alternative (hemmabo_search_properties). Further usage nuances (omit guests for date-only check, pass guests to price alternatives) are provided.

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