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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: assumptions and formulas are surfaced, plus sample sizes, source coverage, freshness, observed ranges, and explicitly excluded categories. That is unusually rich disclosure of what the response will and won't tell you.

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?

Dense, front-loaded sentences; the mode statement comes first and the exclusion plus output inventory follow with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 13 optional parameters, an output schema present, and only 54% schema description coverage, the description does well on output expectations and scope but leaves several input parameters unexplained. Slightly short of fully complete, but well beyond minimum viability.

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 54% and the description only reinforces a couple of fields (days vs exact-date mode, and the components fallback semantics are already in the schema). Many parameters — rooms, people, min_review_count, min_rating_fraction, lodging_types — receive no added meaning from the description, so compensation for the coverage gap is partial.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Compare covered cities for a stay of N days, or for exact dates') with explicit scope negation ('This is not a cost-of-living total'). It distinguishes itself from a general cost-of-living style tool, though it never names compare_lodging_months or summarize_costs directly.

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 two pricing modes (N days vs exact dates) tell the agent which inputs select which behavior, and the schema points to get_dataset_coverage for valid cities. But it gives no guidance on when to pick this over compare_lodging_months or summarize_costs, so usage is implied rather than delineated.

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