Seasonal price overrides, minimum-stay rules and extra fees — the pricing configuration, not a computed quote. The base nightly rate lives on the apartment record (see list_apartments), not here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apartment_id | No | Restrict to one apartment. Must belong to this account. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool does NOT return (not a computed quote, base rate lives elsewhere), which is valuable. It doesn't describe pagination or response shape, but the output schema exists and the read-only nature is already annotated.
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 with no waste. The core scope is front-loaded, and the clarifying exclusions are placed right after. Every sentence earns its place.
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, single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clarifies scope, exclusions, and where to find related data. The only minor gap is not naming a sibling for computed quotes, but the description's explicit 'not a computed quote' is sufficient.
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 the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds the context that apartment_id must belong to this account, which is a small but useful addition beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieving pricing configuration (seasonal overrides, minimum-stay rules, extra fees). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a computed quote and from the base nightly rate, which is enough to differentiate it from siblings like get_availability and list_apartments.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you need the pricing configuration, not a computed quote. It also points to list_apartments for the base nightly rate. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative for computed quotes, but the exclusion is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.