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

Annotations already establish that the call is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: suggestions are calculated live and each result includes a ready-made booking link, which helps the agent set expectations about output and freshness.

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 three focused sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second when to use it, and the third what the results contain. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide when to call the tool and what to expect. It also explains the fallback trigger and the live booking-link behavior, making the definition complete for its 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds contextual meaning by framing check_in and check_out as the occupied desired period, but it does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action: searching for immediately bookable alternative dates around an occupied desired period. It details the kinds of alternatives (same arrival with different duration, same stay shifted by a few days) and clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling verfuegbarkeit_pruefen by describing its fallback role.

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 says to call this tool whenever verfuegbarkeit_pruefen returns nothing, and positions it as the alternative to simply declining the guest. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the related sibling, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's place in the flow.

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