luceed_hotel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states nothing about whether these are read or write operations, permission/auth requirements, rate limits, or return shape—all five actions are effectively opaque behaviors.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the domain before the action list, with no filler. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient phrasing—the raw list of untranslated action names does little work for the reader.

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?

This is a 10-parameter multi-action dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema. The description never explains which parameters apply to which action (e.g. does 'gosti' need datum or hotel_uid?), leaving the agent to guess the correct argument combination for each call.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters, and the action enum is fully described there. The description adds nothing beyond the enum values it repeats, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It identifies the resource domain (hotel reservations, registrations, guest overview) and the dispatcher action verb, which distinguishes it from siblings like luceed_artikli or luceed_partneri. However, the five action values are untranslated Croatian tokens with no gloss, so an agent cannot tell what 'prijave' or 'gosti' actually returns without external knowledge.

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 lists the available actions but gives no guidance on when to pick one over another, no preconditions, and no alternatives among the many luceed_* siblings. The action list is a bare enumeration, not usage direction.

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