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

Even with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true already set, the description adds substantial behavior: close_channels halts sales across all channels and the booking engine while leaving availability intact, unsupported restrictions are silently ignored by a channel, calls are confirmed by default (switchable), and a scoped Cotlet API key is required. This is exactly the operation-specific detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then progressively adds behavioral detail, credentials, and confirmation policy. It is slightly redundant in restating the same six restrictions in natural language and then again as identifiers, but nothing is filler and every sentence informs invocation.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers side effects, authentication, confirmation, and cross-channel behavior well. It omits edge behavior such as what happens when a room_rate_id is invalid or when the range is empty, but the core operational picture is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns the bump by giving semantic meaning to the restriction values, especially close_channels (stops sales, availability unchanged) and the ignore-if-unsupported rule, which the schema's terse 'any of min_stay, max_stay...' line does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Set min or max stay, closed to arrival or departure, or close channels or your website') and scopes it to room rates over a date range. It is unambiguous what the tool changes, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling update_rates, so an agent must infer the restrictions-vs-rates boundary on its own.

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?

Usage is implied rather than instructed: the reader can tell this is for setting stay/channel restrictions, but no when-to-use vs when-not guidance or alternative tool is offered. The 'like Bulk Update' reference points at a product feature, not a competing tool, so it does not help routing.

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