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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that – it searches a window and may adjust length of stay – which is non-obvious for a read query, though it doesn't state the return shape.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the mechanism. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, and search behavior adequately. The one gap is that it doesn't hint at what is returned (e.g., candidate dates and adjusted stays), which the absent output schema leaves unstated.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the default 90-day window and ISO date format. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

States a specific verb+resource: finding nearest available dates and searching alternative check-in dates with LOS adjustment. It is clearly a fallback/alternative-finder distinct from simple availability checks, but it doesn't explicitly name siblings like checkStayAvailability or hasAvailabilityInWindow to sharpen the distinction.

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 a clear triggering condition: 'when requested dates are not available.' This tells the agent when to reach for it, but it names no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer that direct availability checks are a separate tool.

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