Get Rakuten Travel Hotel Ranking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by listing the returned fields (rank, name, area, review stats, URLs). No contradictions.

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 waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and extended with genre options. Japanese translation concisely mirrors the English.

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 adequately summarizes the return fields. Though it lacks details like pagination or result count, for a ranking tool this is sufficient given the open-world hint.

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 single parameter 'genre' has a comprehensive schema with enum and default. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond restating the enum values. Bilingual text is helpful but doesn't add new meaning.

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 it retrieves 'top-ranked hotels on Rakuten Travel' with options for overall or genre-specific rankings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search tools by focusing on rankings.

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 that it can be used overall or by genre, providing clear context for when to use. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but given the distinct ranking focus among sibling search tools, usage is well implied.

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