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

Annotations only cover the read-only/open-world profile; the description adds substantial operational detail beyond that: a ~two-minute refresh timeout with retry guidance, a hard plan-gating failure ('fails with a plan error' without SiteMinder Plus), cell sentinel values (MLOS, SOLD, N/A), and the required Cotlet API key scope. This is exactly the kind of context the 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 resource and channel list, then requirements, then edge-case semantics and failure modes. Dense but nearly every sentence carries new information; the opening 'SiteMinder: Your rates on ...' phrasing is slightly awkward but functional.

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 full burden of describing the return shape, and it does so (grid structure, sentinel cell values, parity flag). Combined with plan gating, date horizon, timeout behavior and auth requirements, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 from/to/guests/nights/include_taxes, and the description adds nothing about them (it never mentions guests, nights or tax handling). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 rate parity') and then explains exactly what is returned: the Insights > Rate parity grid with the user's rate on Agoda, Booking.com, Expedia, HRS and Direct Booking per stay date, plus a below-Direct-Booking flag. This is far more specific than the sibling list-reporting tools and lets an agent tell it apart 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?

Gives clear context for use (needs SiteMinder Plus, date horizon of 30 days, or 90 with Dynamic Revenue Plus) and tells the agent to re-call for dates that did not load after a timeout. It does not name any alternative sibling tool or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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