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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: the response may describe a different stay than the one requested, and stay.checkin/stay.checkout reveal which stay it actually is — an important caveat an agent could not get from structured fields alone. It does not cover rate limits, caching, or response shape.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The trailing 'kept unchanged for the integrations of the first server' is slightly cryptic in wording but still earns its place as a compatibility signal.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what it returns (offers), for what inputs, and the critical caveat about possibly mismatched stays. Details like offer/price structure or pagination are left implicit but are not blocking.

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% and the hotel enum is documented in the schema, so the parameters are already well specified and the baseline is a 3. The description adds only the negative note that no guests parameter is accepted, which implies a sibling API variant takes one but adds no date or hotel semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Hotel offers for a Corissia hotel and date range') and identifies the API variant ('API version 2.0, without a guests parameter'). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the closest siblings such as get_quote or compare_hotels, so an agent still has to infer which one is the price-request tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and the alternatives (get_quote, compare_hotels, get_room_details) are never mentioned. The only implicit guidance is the 'API version 2.0, without guests' framing plus the 'kept unchanged for integrations of the first server' note, which hints this is a legacy-compatible variant but does not tell an agent whether to prefer it.

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