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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral boundary by stating that prices are not delivered here but by verfuegbarkeit_pruefen, preventing misuse. It also clarifies the scope of the explanation, and an output schema exists so return structure does not need to be described.

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 compact yet information-dense: it packs the core purpose, covered topics, example questions, and a sibling distinction into two sentences. Every clause adds actionable guidance and nothing is redundant with schema or annotations.

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 read-only information tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all agent-relevant aspects: what is explained, what questions are answered, and what is explicitly left to another tool. No critical gap is apparent.

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 already fully documented in the schema as 'Sprachcode, z. B. de, en, it, fr', so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no extra parameter nuance, but since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score 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 ('Erklärt') and names a precise resource ('online buchbaren Raten'), then enumerates exactly what is covered: basis of each rate, included services, cancellation/deposit terms, and child discounts. It explicitly differentiates itself from verfuegbarkeit_pruefen by stating that prices are provided there, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 provides concrete example queries ('Was ist in der Halbpension enthalten?', 'Wie kann ich stornieren?') that signal exactly when to invoke the tool. It also names verfuegbarkeit_pruefen as the source of prices, giving a clear exclusion for pricing questions. It does not contrast itself with other siblings like zusatzleistungen or hotel_info, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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