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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it declares read-only, explains public rate plan selection (default 'BAR - ' title, explicit override), defines the no_public_rate outcome, lists respected constraints (stop_sell, closed_to_arrival, min_stay_arrival, occupancy), and states date rules and that it does not create bookings or accept payment card data. This is exactly the kind of rich context an agent needs.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but front-loads 'Read-only' and then delivers key information in a logical order. Every sentence carries useful content, though the density and lack of formatting (e.g., bullet points) slightly reduce readability.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a moderately complex read operation, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, rate plan logic, special outcomes (no_public_rate), constraint handling, date rules, and explicit negative guarantees. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears 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 all five parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description repeats some date constraints (ISO dates in Pacific/Auckland, check-out after check-in, max 30 nights, no past check-in) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returns room types that fit the stay with nightly and total NZD rates from public rate plans. It is clearly not tautological and an agent can infer it is distinct from get_booking_link and get_property_info, but it does not explicitly differentiate from those siblings.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use it (checking availability, read-only) and when not to use it (does not create a booking, does not accept payment card data). However, it does not name or contrast with alternative tools such as get_booking_link or get_property_info, so it falls short of a full 5.

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