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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that guests see the rate at checkout, that excessive rates can hurt conversion and trigger account removal, that each call is user-confirmed by default, that it 'reaches other people,' and that a Cotlet API key is required. It does not disclose reversibility or how an existing rate is later edited/removed, which matters since no update/delete sibling exists.

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-loads the purpose, then layers risk, confirmation, and auth notes. Mostly efficient, but the two confirmation statements ('By default you confirm each call' and 'confirm with the user before each call') are redundant and the opening sentence is a fragment.

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 6-param, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, usage example, behavioral warnings, confirmation policy, and auth requirements. It is close to complete, missing only guidance on editing/removing rates and overlap behavior.

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 fields (including HH:MM formats and the day codes). The description only conceptually maps 'a name, a rate and the days and times' to the parameters, adding little format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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: it 'Adds a calendar rate to one listing' consisting of a name, rate, and applicable days/times. This cleanly separates it from read-oriented siblings like peerspace_get_calendar or peerspace_block_calendar_time, though no sibling is named explicitly to nail down the boundary.

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 'e.g. weekends or weekday evenings' example conveys when a per-day rate is appropriate, and there is a useful caution about rates far above base rate. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or points to alternatives such as block_calendar_time or set_instant_book, so usage is only implied.

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