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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description carries real weight and does so: currency conversion at xe.com rates, the stay_date quirk that suppresses total revenue and alters room-night counting, and the requirement for a Cotlet API key with app access. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know before invoking.

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 metric set, but sentence one and sentence two redundantly enumerate nearly the same measures (room/total revenue, reservations, room nights, ADR, ALOS, lead time, cancellations), so a full sentence is spent restating rather than adding. The behavioral and auth sentences earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return payload by listing the metrics, and it also covers the breakdown dimension, date_basis behavior, currency handling, and auth access. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the date_basis enum ('total revenue is not returned and room nights count only the chosen period') and restating the breakdown dimensions. It does not clarify the from/to constraint already in the schema, so it does not reach 5.

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 ('Get booking performance') and enumerates the exact metric set returned (room/total revenue, reservations, room nights, ADR, ALOS, lead time, cancellations) with the breakdown dimension. This is more specific than any sibling such as siteminder_get_pace_report and lets an agent distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 through the period/date_basis framing and the note that total revenue is dropped under stay_date, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs an alternative sibling (e.g., pace report or reservations). The agent must infer the appropriate context rather than being routed.

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