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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the snapshot is bounded to a next-seven-UTC-day sample, is tenant-scoped, and explicitly lists what is excluded. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about data scope and privacy.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists exclusions. It is efficient and every clause earns its place, though the long exclusion list makes it slightly dense.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It clearly defines scope, time window, and exclusions. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming sibling tools for comparison, but the aggregate-vs-detail distinction is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter hotelId is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details, but with only one well-documented parameter, the baseline of 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 ('Render') and resource ('bounded tenant-scoped operational snapshot for one Hotelumo hotel'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it is an aggregate overview that never exposes individual stays. This makes it easy for an agent to know what this tool does and how it differs from get_hotel or get_hotel_availability.

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 clearly implies this is for a high-level operational snapshot of a single hotel, and the exclusions (no individual stays, no guest identities, etc.) signal when NOT to use it. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_hotel or get_hotel_availability, but the bounded aggregate scope is clear enough to guide selection.

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