find_accommodations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that 'near' is geocoded differently per world, that some parameters are ignored for bral, and that results are returned as a formatted narrative list. It does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate and exceeds minimal expectations.

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 organized with a clear main sentence followed by a bullet-like parameter list. It is longer than typical but each line adds value, especially the world-specific enumerations. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'earth-313 only' for multiple params) but the structure is scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, two world-specific variants, and no schema descriptions, yet the description covers parameter semantics and return format. It does not address edge cases like conflicting near vs lat/lon, but an output schema exists and the narrative return type is mentioned. This is highly complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: near (geocoding behavior), lat/lon as alternatives, radius_m default, features with per-world option lists, category behavior, date range constraints, and max_results default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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: 'Find accommodations in the current world.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_events and find_gastronomy by focusing on lodging and location-scoped search. The scope 'current world' ties it to the world context shared with set_world, avoiding confusion.

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 clear usage context by explaining world-specific parameter behavior (earth-313 vs bral), such as which features are valid and when category is ignored. It implies when to use this tool (accommodation search) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like find_events. Nevertheless, the parameter guidance serves as strong usage direction.

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