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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds substantial behavior: a 10 req/min rate limit with a 429 outcome, beta status with possible API changes, 404 for both cache misses and negative-cache entries, automatic occupancy canonicalization, and a no-upstream-call low-latency guarantee. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.

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?

Well front-loaded with headers, and the warning/rate-limit callouts are appropriately prominent. It is long and the 'Parameters' section largely restates the schema, which is the only redundancy; overall each block 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?

With no output schema, the 'What You Get' block documents the return fields (amount, nightlyAmount, provider, fetchedAt, expiresAt, offers), so the agent knows both what it receives and when the data expires. Combined with the rate-limit, beta, and 404 semantics, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: a concrete hotelId example (`lpec902`), the constraint that query params must match write-time occupancy, the `5,8` childrenAges form, and the USD-only currency restriction. These are operational constraints not present in the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Retrieve cached public price data for a specific hotel and occupancy') and scopes it to pre-fetched public booking-platform data. This distinguishes it from live-rate siblings such as post_hotels_rates and post_rates_prebook without the agent opening a schema.

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 three concrete use cases (price comparison, rate validation, market intelligence) that clearly frame when this tool applies. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so routing against siblings like post_hotels_min_rates is still left to inference.

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