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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the call requires a signed-in account and spans months of results, which is not derivable from 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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the user-intent trigger is front-loaded, then the prerequisite, then the next step. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Covers the intent, prerequisite chain and follow-up action, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling price_calendar tool.

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 hotel_id, start_month and end_month (including defaults and formats). The description only restates the hotel_id source, adding no new syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'one hotel's nightly price by check-in date across a span of months', and frames the user intent ('when is this hotel cheapest'). This clearly distinguishes it from hotel_details, hotel_booking_options and the generic price_calendar sibling.

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?

Gives a clear trigger phrase, a required prerequisite ('Needs a hotel_id from search_hotels'), and a follow-up workflow ('Then search_hotels with the chosen dates to track it'). It does not, however, explicitly contrast with the sibling price_calendar, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between the two calendars.

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