Get Booking and Procurement Policies

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing how unsupported values are marked, instructing agents to never infer missing numbers, noting that unknown topics return an available-topic list, and adding the interpretive caveat that the output is 'an operational summary, not a contract.' These are high-value behavioral details.

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?

Info is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by usage guidance and examples. Every sentence contributes context that affects invocation behavior, and the format with examples and hints is efficiently structured without padding.

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 single optional parameter, rich schema, and annotations, the description is fully complete for invocation. It covers what happens with omission, unknown topics, aliases, unsupported values, and how to treat the response. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds meaning beyond the enum by explaining that omitting the topic returns all policies or a broader answer, that aliases are accepted, and that unknown topics return the list of available topics. It also provides concrete examples.

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 identifies the resource (TempGuru's published booking and procurement policies plus public offers) and uses a specific verb ('get'). It sets the tool apart from sibling tools like get_cities or get_roles by specifying a uniquely policy-related resource and scope.

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 explicitly says to 'Use for real booking questions that otherwise require an email,' which gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is strong and contextual.

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