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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral transparency by enumerating what is excluded from results (identifiers, guest data, etc.) and the 31-day limit, which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 filler. The primary function is stated upfront, and the exclusions are listed concisely. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema, annotations covering safety, and the description's explicit enumeration of operational counts and exclusions, the tool is fully specified for an agent to call correctly. There is no missing critical information such as return format or authentication requirements.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds some context about the date range ('at most 31 days') and aggregation by UTC day, but does not deeply elaborate on parameter formatting or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Count'), the resource ('tenant-owned reservations and active stays by UTC day for one hotel'), and explicitly lists what it returns and what it never returns. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_hotel_availability or show_hotel_overview.

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 operational aggregate counts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context about scope but no direct comparison or exclusion, so only inferred usage guidance is present.

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