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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that results include booking links and by explicitly ruling out daily price data.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core result set is front-loaded first, and the critical exclusion plus sibling pointer appears immediately after, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description communicates the main output categories and a key limitation. It does not detail the exact response structure, but the level of detail is adequate for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 only parameter, 'lang', is fully documented in the schema with examples ('de, en, it, fr'), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no additional meaning about the language parameter, but given 100% schema coverage, 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 uses a specific verb ('Liefert') and names three concrete resource types: Stammdaten des Hauses, Zimmerkategorien, and Pauschalen. It also explicitly excludes daily prices, distinguishing it from the sibling verfuegbarkeit_pruefen.

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?

It clearly states what the tool does NOT provide ('KEINE tagesabhängigen Preise') and explicitly directs the agent to the correct alternative ('dafür verfuegbarkeit_pruefen verwenden'). This gives both a positive use case and a when-not-to-use condition.

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