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

The description explicitly says 'Read-only' (consistent with the annotation), and adds context beyond annotations: the 'bed-places only' restriction and the effect of promo_code on price. It also mentions the default for check_out, though that is also in the schema. Since annotations already cover read-only, the description adds useful scope and pricing behavior.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then essential usage details. No filler words; every clause earns its place. The description efficiently conveys scope, read-only nature, default behavior, and promo code usage.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described) and annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers all necessary invocation details: purpose, location, scope, default behavior, and promo code. An agent can call this tool correctly without additional information.

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 75% (check_in, check_out, promo_code have descriptions; guests lacks one). The description repeats check_out default and promo_code example already present in the schema, so it adds little new meaning. It does not clarify guests or any additional parameter semantics, but the schema covers most parameters adequately.

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 the specific action ('Check dorm bed-place availability and price'), the resource ('Aurinia XO (Kamianets-Podilskyi)'), and the scope ('bed-places only, no room types'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like book, cancel, and list bookings, which are mutations or retrievals of different data.

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 implies when to use it: before booking, to check availability and price. It also notes 'bed-places only' which excludes room-type queries. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool; the read-only annotation helps but the description doesn't discuss exclusion criteria beyond scope.

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