Search Rakuten GORA Reservation Plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the return structure (plan name, price, inclusions, start time, points) and filtering capabilities, which goes beyond the safe-read designation.

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 English portion is 5 tight sentences that front-load the main action and immediately list return fields. The Japanese duplicate is reasonable for bilingual audiences. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (plans with price, inclusions, start time, points) and all major filtering axes. Pagination parameters (hits, page) are covered in the schema, which suffices. The context of comparing plans before reserving is well set.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter titles and descriptions. The description mentions filtering by areaCode, golfCourseId, playerNum, and budget, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Rakuten GORA reservation plans'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gora_golf_course_search (searches courses) and gora_golf_course_detail (gets course details).

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 explicitly advises using this tool to 'compare options across courses before reserving', providing clear use context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternative tools for other tasks.

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