1Stay Hotel Booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, indicating it's a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read operation. The description adds context about filtering capabilities and the domain (1Stay hotel booking), which is useful but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, auth needs, or output format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the tool's function, and the second explains filtering and the option to omit keywords. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), annotations cover safety aspects, and the description provides clear purpose and usage guidelines, it is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., tool list format), leaving a minor gap in contextual information.

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%, with the parameter 'keyword' fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal value by repeating the filtering purpose and examples ('search, book, cancel, details'), but doesn't provide new semantics beyond what the schema already covers (e.g., keyword usage and omission effects). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List available 1Stay hotel booking tools') and resource ('tools'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it lists tools rather than performing booking operations like 'book_hotel' or 'search_hotels'. It's precise about the domain (1Stay hotel booking).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it lists tools for filtering by keywords like 'search', 'book', 'cancel', 'details', and mentions to omit keyword to list all tools. This directly addresses usage context and differentiates from sibling tools that perform those actions (e.g., 'book_hotel' for booking, 'search_hotels' for searching hotels).

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