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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the price is live, that it covers all-in price and availability, and that the answer includes a bookingUrl that should always be shared. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand what the result is for and what to do with it. It does not specify the exact response shape, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the package-specific variant, a critical instruction about bookingUrl, and the alternative tool for the un-located scenario. Every sentence earns its place.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: scope, input intent, the special packageId path, the bookingUrl output behavior, and when to route to search_stays. It does not spell out every parameter, but the schema already does that. The absence of any annotation is compensated by the concrete behavioral and usage details in the description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining that packageId comes from list_arrangements and that the parameters collectively describe a 'party' for a stay. This helps the agent understand the relationship between parameters and the intended use, not just their individual formats.

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 ('Live all-in price and availability') on a clear resource (a stay at one Floreal location) and specifies the key qualifiers (arrival date, nights, party, per accommodation type). It also distinguishes itself from search_stays by noting that this tool targets a single location, removing ambiguity about which sibling to pick.

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 use search_stays instead when no location has been chosen, and tells the agent to pass a packageId from list_arrangements to price a specific package. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance plus a named alternative.

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