Search Hut Availability

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it checks cached huts by default and that 'maxCandidates' yields partial results. 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 two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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?

Despite annotations providing some context, the description is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters, including a nested 'near' object. It does not explain return behavior, result structure, or how to interpret the output, which is critical given no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'ISO YYYY-MM-DD' for dates (implicitly for arrivalDate and departureDate) and 'maxCandidates'. The remaining parameters (country, canton, text, near, limit, partySize) are not described, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 ('Search') and resource ('huts') with a clear constraint ('enough free places for every night in an exact arrival/departure period'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_huts' by focusing on availability checking for a date range.

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 specifies date format (ISO YYYY-MM-DD) and explains default behavior (all matched cached huts checked) and the effect of 'maxCandidates' (intentional partial result). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_huts', though the context implies it for availability queries.

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