cuddlynest_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is an autosuggestion/destination-resolution step, not a full hotel-price enumerator, and calls out that a further capture is needed. However, it does not disclose response shape beyond 'candidates' and 'internal slug', nor does it address error behavior, rate limits, or whether the call is read-only. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be expected for a higher score.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about the need for a further capture is concise and actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so complexity is moderate-high. The description gives a clear purpose and next-step routing, but it leaves ambiguity about why parameters like checkin, checkout, rooms, adults, and currency are present in an autosuggestion call and what exactly the returned candidates look like beyond the slug. Adequate for basic use, but with clear gaps.

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 a little meaning around the destination and slug, but it does not clarify how the optional occupancy, date, or currency parameters relate to the autosuggestion step or whether they are pass-through values for later pricing. The schema already documents each parameter, so this is adequate but not additive.

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 and resource: it resolves a destination to autosuggestion candidates and surfaces the internal slug for pricing lookups. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from cuddlynest_listing_details by noting it does not enumerate hotels with prices, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: to resolve a city/area destination to candidates with slugs. It also explains what this tool is not for, enumerating hotels with prices, and directs the agent to cuddlynest_listing_details for live room prices on a known hotel. This is explicit routing with an alternative.

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