check_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is public, requires no API key, and operates in real time, and 'verify/retrieve' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, rate limits, or response variability.

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 efficient sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the authentication note is appended as a concise secondary fact. Every word 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 read-only availability check with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what it does, real-time behavior, and authentication requirements. It does not detail the output shape, but 'retrieve detailed pricing' gives a reasonable hint.

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 fully documented. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'specific experience' but does not elaborate on date, pax, or optional time semantics. 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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('real-time availability and retrieve detailed pricing for a specific experience'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'specific experience', which sets it apart from search_tours and aligns with a pre-booking check step.

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 states clear context: use this tool to check availability and pricing for an already-identified experience. The added note that it is public and requires no API key provides a definite usage condition. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the intended scenario is evident.

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