build_options_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool writes a file to disk, returns its path, that lodging is 'rate on request', and that priced options come from Viator. It also mentions the interactive 'Generate quote' button and print-to-PDF friendliness. It does not cover edge cases or failure modes, but the core side effects are stated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: first defines the page, second explains the interactive flow and sources, third states the file side effect. No redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 16 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level picture: contents, data sources, interactivity, output format, and file writing. It is slightly incomplete regarding whether the tool fetches data itself or expects pre-fetched data from sibling search tools, and it does not detail the structure of the generated HTML page, but it is adequate for most selection decisions.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for several parameters (profile-matched experiences, requested day trips, dining, transfers), but leaves many parameters (maxStays, maxActivities, branding, children, etc.) unexplained beyond their schema names. The description gives an overall workflow but not per-parameter semantics, which is a moderate gap given the low 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 uses a specific verb ('Builds') and a clear resource ('self-contained interactive HTML options page for a trip'), listing the major content sections (lodging, transfers, experiences, day trips, dining). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the interactive selection flow and the final quote generation, making its role unique relative to build_proposal.

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 implies when to use the tool by outlining the interactive client selection workflow and mentioning data sources (Google Places, Viator) and output (print-to-PDF quote). It does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or contrast with alternatives like build_proposal, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide between this and search tools.

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