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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false/destructive=false/openWorld=true; the description adds real behavioral context: the special price overrides the base price, applies only to future bookings while confirmed bookings keep their price, and one call is reversible. It also states the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first two sentences are near-redundant ('Set a special nightly price for chosen nights' vs 'Sets a special price for the nights in the range'). The API-key sentence is useful but sits awkwardly at the end.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers precedence, retroactivity, reversibility, and auth, which is substantial. It stops short of error cases or how partial-range failures are handled, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 all six parameters (from/to, site_id, weekdays, listing_id, nightly_price). The description adds only the notion of a 'range' and 'chosen nights,' which the schema covers; 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 and resource: 'Set a special nightly price for chosen nights,' and anchors it with 'the same as Bulk Edit in the Calendar.' An agent can immediately tell this prices a night range rather than blocking dates or reading the calendar.

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?

It implies usage ('for the nights in the range') and clarifies scope, but never names when-not or the alternative sibling tools (e.g., block_dates/unblock_dates) an agent might confuse this with. The 'runs without asking' note is about autonomy, not when-to-use selection.

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