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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is low, yet the description still adds substantial behavior: public-only room types are excluded, wholesale options above their public comparison are marked sold_out with no price while the public comparison remains, and exact private prices live on Brek. These are non-obvious result-shaping rules an agent needs to interpret output correctly.

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 core action, then the ID-resolution rule, then result contents and edge cases. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the final three sentences on rate bands, exclusions, and Brek pricing could be tightened into a single bullet-like clause.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with an output schema, this covers everything an agent must know: how to identify the hotel, how occupancy maps to rooms, and what quirks to expect in the returned offers. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 92%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: the propertyId provenance rule and the aggregate-occupancy-vs-per-roomArrangements relationship for multi-room stays. It does not re-explain currency, time zone, or dateIntent, which the schema already covers well, keeping it above baseline without being exhaustive.

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: returns one identified hotel's full-stay property data plus live room offers for given dates and occupancy. It is clearly distinguishable from search_accommodations (which produces the propertyId you pass in here) and implicitly from get_accommodation_details by its focus on priced room offers rather than general details.

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?

Explicitly routes between two identification paths: copy propertyId verbatim from a prior search_accommodations result when unique, otherwise fall back to hotelName plus optional destination. It also states the when-not case (ask for clarification on ambiguous matches) and forbids shortening/combining/placeholder IDs.

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