hilton_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a URL and instructions for manual login, implying it's non-destructive and requires user interaction. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by immediate outcomes and next steps, all in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is largely complete for its purpose—it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to proceed. However, it could improve by mentioning potential errors or prerequisites, slightly reducing completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to compensate unnecessarily.

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 specific action ('Initiate Hilton Honors login flow') and resource ('Hilton Honors'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'hilton_status' (verification) and 'hilton_logout' (termination). It explicitly mentions returning a URL and instructions for manual completion, which clarifies the tool's unique function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to start login) and what to do afterward ('use hilton_status to verify'), including a clear alternative action post-login. It distinguishes usage from siblings by focusing on initiation rather than status checking or logout.

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