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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real domain context: data comes live from SiteMinder, prices are indicative full-stay totals in COP, and nothing is reserved. It stops short of saying anything about rate staleness, failures, or multi-currency handling.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, followed by what it returns and the non-booking caveat. Every sentence carries new 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return payload (room/rate names, prefilled booking links) and the currency basis of the totals. Minor gaps remain around empty results or invalid date handling, but nothing essential to invocation is 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter (including the hotel enum and date patterns) is documented in-schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds only currency/scope framing, not parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Check live SiteMinder room availability', 'full-stay totals in COP') and scopes it to the two Casona hotels. It is clear enough to distinguish from list_casona_properties by subject matter, though it never explicitly references that sibling.

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 states the operative context (pre-booking rate research across one or both hotels) and the follow-up workflow ('No booking is created; guest must confirm rates and terms in the hotel booking engine'). It gives context but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative.

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