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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the include-flag mechanism and the specific default projection (numAvail, minStay, maxStay, override, prices) applied when no flags are set, which directly affects what an agent receives back. It does not discuss pagination behavior, though the schema covers that via the page parameter.

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 the returned resource and its fields before the include-flag mechanics. Dense but every clause carries information; the API endpoint citation is slightly expendable.

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 carries the return-value burden and largely meets it by naming the returned field families and their date-range shape. Pagination and the pages.nextPageExists signal live in the schema rather than the description, and per-flag semantics remain thin, so it is not fully complete.

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 only 46%, and the seven include* flags (includePrices, includeMaxStay, includeMinStay, includeNumAvail, includeOverride, includeMultiplier, includeLinkedPrices) carry no schema descriptions. The description compensates by explaining what include flags do collectively and which fields the default set yields, plus what price1..price16 represent. It stops short of defining each flag individually.

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 and resource ('Per-day calendar values for rooms') and enumerates the exact data returned: units available, min/max stay, multiplier, override, and price1..price16 as date ranges. This lets an agent distinguish it from beds24_update_room_calendar (write) and beds24_get_room_availability without opening either schema.

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 description explains the include-flag selection mechanism and the fallback default set when no flags are given, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like beds24_get_room_availability or beds24_get_room_offers, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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