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

Annotations already cover the read-only/safe profile, so the description wisely spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app') and the data-availability ceiling of one year of forward-looking pace. It also clarifies what the revenue figure excludes (extras and card surcharges), which prevents misinterpretation.

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 resource and metric list, then drops constraints (default period, one-year horizon, auth). Four dense sentences with little padding, though the metric enumeration is slightly verbose and could be tightened.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so well (all four metrics plus YoY change and source markets). Combined with the stated auth requirement and date-range limits, an agent has nearly everything needed; only sibling routing is absent.

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% and the schema already documents both date defaults, so the description only repeats the default period (next 30 days). It adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline here.

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+resource and enumerates exactly what the report contains (reservations, revenue, room nights, ADR, YoY percent change), plus the UI location 'Insights > Pace'. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling siteminder_get_booking_performance, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides useful scoping context (default next 30 days, one year of forward-looking data available) but never says when to pick this over siteminder_get_booking_performance or another reporting sibling. Usage is implied by the data description rather than stated.

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