cuddlynest_listing_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the two data sources — a listing page and a wholesale-supplier WebSocket — and by noting that live data is accumulated across partial messages. It does not mention reliability, rate limits, or exact asynchronous behavior of the WebSocket, but the disclosed behavior is materially useful.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then layers static vs. live data sources, ending with the partial-message accumulation caveat. It is efficient and readable, though the parentheticals make it somewhat long; no sentence is wasted.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, where it comes from, and what the live parameters are for. It does not describe the return shape or partial-failure behavior in detail, but the listed result categories are enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful overall context by clarifying that parameters like checkin/checkout/adults drive the live pricing and availability stream, while the hotel parameter identifies the listing. It does not add per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific CuddlyNest hotel') and lists concrete result categories: static basics, live room options, prices, availability, and cancellation policies. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling cuddlynest_search, which by name handles search rather than retrieval of a specific listing.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you already have a specific CuddlyNest hotel and want both static and live details. However, it does not explicitly name cuddlynest_search or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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