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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context on top: it explicitly rules out inventory checks and inquiry sends, the two side effects an agent might otherwise fear, and restricts scope to published customers.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the exclusions appended; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description makes the return value clear (a booking or inquiry URL), and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the format expected for the nested stay dates, which nothing in the definition supplies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the causal link that the result is derived 'from stay length' (explaining why the nested stay object matters), but gives no date format guidance for check_in/check_out, leaving the nested object under-specified.

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 ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('official booking or inquiry URL'), scoped to published customers and driven by stay length. It does not name any sibling tool, differentiating only through negations ('never checks inventory or sends an inquiry'), so an agent must infer the boundary with search_availability and prepare_reservation_action.

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?

'Never checks inventory or sends an inquiry' implies two when-not boundaries, which is useful negative guidance. However, no when-to-use condition or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer routing between this tool, search_availability, and prepare_reservation_action.

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