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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explains that 'none' coverage is a valid, machine-readable answer to pass on, with a reason and booking link. This prevents an agent from misinterpreting a legitimate response as an error.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying an important edge-case behavior, with no redundant filler.

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 simple read-only tool with fully covered parameters bool lacks an output schema, the description handles the most important interpretive trap: coverage 'none' is a valid result. It does not detail the positive-result response shape, but 'free beds per night' provides enough for an agent to infer the output.

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 the schema already documents slug, from, and to. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond implying date range via 'per night' and 'one hut', so 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 clearly states the tool returns free beds per night for a single hut, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get-hut or search-huts, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 context is reasonably clear: this is for per-night availability of one hut using a slug. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get-hut or search-huts, nor any exclusion criteria.

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