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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the query is bounded (max 30 nights), non-person-linked, and it explicitly lists exclusions (guest records, reservations, room assignments, access data, notes, payments, channel references, photos, free-text descriptions, and credentials). It also states that amounts are in minor currency units. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of data scope and constraints.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints. The long exclusion list is dense but each item is meaningful and earns its place. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is efficiently structured.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers scope, constraints, exclusions, and currency units comprehensively. It does not explicitly mention pagination or response structure, but those are likely covered by the output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though a note on the meaning of 'availability' might add minor value.

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 50% (hotelId, checkInDate, checkOutDate have descriptions; adults, infants, children do not). The description compensates by clarifying that hotelId refers to a tenant-owned hotel and that the stay is at most 30 nights, which imposes constraints on the date parameters. It also clarifies the currency unit for price-related outputs. The guest-count parameters are self-explanatory, so the description provides meaningful added semantics for the required parameters without being exhaustive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Review bounded, non-person-linked room-type availability and prices'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by scope (one tenant-owned hotel, max 30 nights) and data type (room-type availability/prices, not guest data or schedules). It leaves no doubt about what the tool returns.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_daily_rates or list_room_types. The 'bounded' and 'non-person-linked' phrasing implies a limited query, but there is no explicit 'use this for X, use that for Y' or any alternatives mentioned. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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