aloha-fyi-hawaii

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'budget deals,' 'discounts,' and sources like Groupon, implying a search or read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, such as whether it performs external API calls or returns structured data.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about deal types without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope, making it efficient and well-structured, though it could be slightly more detailed for a perfect score.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like data freshness or limitations. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context on what the tool returns and how it behaves, but it falls short, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (activity, max_price_dollars, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a focus on 'budget' and 'discounts,' which loosely relates to max_price_dollars but doesn't enhance the schema's information. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: 'Find the best budget deals and discounts for Hawaii tours and activities.' It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'deals and discounts,' and mentions sources like Groupon deals, sales, and value options. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_hawaii_tours' or 'plan_hawaii_day,' which might also involve finding activities, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or specify contexts like budget-focused searches versus general planning. Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, the agent must infer usage from the description alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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