search_stays

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a scraper, prices are indicative and scraped at quote time, and it can take up to 120s with a specific timeout behavior (returns empty list with a note). These are important behavioral traits beyond what typical search tools might disclose. However, it does not mention potential side effects like external service dependencies or rate limits, so a 4 is warranted.

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, followed by two concise caveats (price indicativeness, timeout). Every sentence adds valuable information without excess. It is appropriately sized and structured for quick comprehension by an agent.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose, data source, and key behavioral traits (timeout, price indicativeness). However, it does not explain the return value structure or what data the agent can expect in a successful response, which is important given the lack of an output schema. The description is adequate for basic usage but leaves gaps for an agent deciding how to use the returned data.

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 57%, with 4 of 7 parameters having descriptions (checkIn, checkOut, destination, budgetPerNight). The tool description does not add specific meaning for the remaining parameters (adults, children, maxResults), which are self-explanatory by name but lack clarification on limits or behavior. The description only references 'destination and date range' in prose, which is already in the schema. Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, it falls below the baseline 3.

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: 'Search vacation stays (hotels/apartments) for a destination and date range via Bright Data's Booking.com listings scraper.' It uses a specific verb (search), identifies the resource (vacation stays), and distinguishes it from siblings like search_activities and search_dining by specifying the domain (stays) and data source (Booking.com scraper).

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 clear context on when to use the tool: searching accommodation for a destination and date range. It implicitly distinguishes from search_activities and search_dining by focusing on stays. It also notes limitations like price indicativeness and timeout behavior, which help the agent decide if this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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