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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (verdict, whole-stay price, offer link) but discloses nothing about failure modes, partial availability across the 10 offers, or pricing caveats beyond what the schema states.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return contract. No filler, though the parenthetical parameter recap is slightly redundant with the schema.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema defining returns, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the tool's scope, inputs' origin, and batch limit. Minor gaps around partial-availability behavior remain, but nothing critical for correct 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the party and date parameters and the 10-offer cap, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, though the schema itself is thorough.

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+resource ('Checks availability and the total price of a stay') and scopes it precisely with the party parameters and a cap of 10 offers. It differentiates itself from the search siblings by tying inputs to 'offer_id values as returned in search results'.

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 clearly establishes the workflow context (offer_ids come from prior search results) and the batch limit, which tells an agent when this tool is the right next step. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_offer_details instead).

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