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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: ranges are never merged, platform occupancy rules apply, and nightly amounts/subtotal are returned only when every requested night has a current amount. It also discloses it cannot hold or confirm, which is extra context beyond the read-only annotation.

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 compact paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the main behavior and output for the success case, including nightly amounts and subtotal. However, it does not explicitly state what happens if not all nights have current amounts, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 descriptions cover 50% of parameters. The description adds meaning for platform (applies occupancy rule) and dates (single range requirement), but does not explain the semantics of adults, infants, or children beyond schema. Thus it partially compensates for missing parameter info.

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 specifically states it 'Interpret the current public availability feed for one proposed stay,' clearly identifying the tool's action and scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from booking tools by noting it cannot confirm reservations or final prices.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for an indicative check of a single stay window that must fit within one range. It implies boundaries by stating what it cannot do (hold dates, confirm), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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