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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: a default 7-day window, a 31-day maximum, and a counting cap of 500. It does not explain response shape, but the output schema makes that unnecessary.

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 the triggering intent, followed by the return contents and limits, then the exclusion. No filler and nothing buried.

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 aggregate tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is counted, the default and maximum window, the 500 cap, and what the tool is not for. No meaningful gap remains.

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 100%: dateFrom/dateTo defaults, the inclusive YYYY-MM-DD format and the 31-day limit are all documented in the schema already. The description's window and cap statements largely restate that, so baseline 3 is appropriate with no added syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: it returns daily counts of arrivals, departures and in-house stays, plus reservation totals by status. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from lookup-style siblings like get_hotel or list_rooms without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ("Use this when someone asks how busy the hotel is, or how many arrivals, departures or in-house stays fall on each day") and an explicit exclusion ("Not for looking up a guest or reservation"). It does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative for a caller who wanted an occupied-rooms view, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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