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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context: prices are not included and must be requested via get_stay_price using the packageId. It does not describe response format, pagination, or availability behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and key output fields; the second gives a necessary cross-tool instruction. 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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, this is complete: it names the input scope, enumerates the returned fields, and explains how to get pricing. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and use its results.

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 schema already fully documents the single domain parameter with an example value ('floreal-blankenberge'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the location-scoped context but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'bookable packages of one location', and explicitly enumerates the content (stay arrangements, add-on extras, name, description, validity period). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_menu, list_accommodation_types, or search_stays.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to obtain the bookable packages for a location. It also directs the agent to get_stay_price for pricing because a package price depends on stay and party, which is an explicit alternative. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with other listing or search siblings.

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