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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns accommodation types, total price, amount due at checkout, and explains why others fail. This is useful context but does not disclose any further traits like rate limits or pagination.

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 fluff. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second details the output and rejection reasons. Information is front-loaded and 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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description explains the return structure (accommodation types, pricing, due amount, rejection reasons). It does not mention edge cases like no availability or invalid dates, but these are likely covered by the output schema (absent) or typical behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, the description does well to convey the response semantics.

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 input schema fully documents all six parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description offers no extra semantic value.

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 (check live availability) on a specific resource (one campsite) for a given stay and party, and enumerates the output (accommodation types, prices, reasons for rejection). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_campsite (info), get_quote (pricing), search_campsites (search), and start_booking (booking).

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 usage for checking availability before booking, and lists specific rejection reasons. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_quote or search_campsites, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on alternative selection.

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