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 genuine behavioral context by enumerating the returned per-day fields and the status vocabulary, and by explaining that includeResources surfaces the occupying reservations. With no output schema, this disclosure carries real weight. No auth/permission or timezone caveats, hence not a 5.

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 dense sentences plus the underlying endpoint reference; the returned-field list is front-loaded before the optional-parameter tip. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 must describe returns and it does so field-by-field (status, price, min/max stay, CTA/CTD, notes) including the includeResources expansion. All four parameters are either explained or covered by the schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for includeResources — the schema only says 'attached sub-resources' while the description clarifies it reveals the reservations occupying each day. It also documents the status values that appear in results. startDate/endDate/listingId meaning is left to the schema.

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 ('day-by-day availability and pricing for one listing over a date range') and enumerates exactly what each day contains: status, nightly price, min/max stay, closed-to-arrival/departure, notes. This clearly separates it from hostaway_get_listing (property metadata) and hostaway_update_calendar (mutation), so the agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Clear context: use it for a single listing's day-by-day availability/pricing across a date range, and the conditional 'Set includeResources to see the reservations occupying each day' tells the agent when to flip that flag. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., update_calendar for writes) is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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