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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the default field set requested when no include flags are given (numAvail, minStay, maxStay, override, prices). This goes beyond the safety profile, though it omits pagination behavior and 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the flag behavior, then the API endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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, paginated read at 46% schema coverage with no output schema, the description covers the include-flag mechanics but leaves gaps around pagination, date-range semantics, and how roomIds/propertyIds combine. Adequate but not 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 most include flags (includePrices, includeMinStay, etc.) have no schema description, but the description compensates by explaining what those flags collectively control and the default set. It still adds nothing for page, roomIds, propertyIds, or start/endDate semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 resource (per-day room calendar values) and enumerates the returned field groups (units available, min/max stay, multiplier, override, price1..price16). An agent can distinguish it from availability/offers tools by the calendar-value framing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides guidance on how to select returned fields via include flags and what happens when none are set, which is actionable. However, it gives no when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., get_room_availability, get_room_offers) and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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