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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: data comes from past scans, is tax-inclusive for two adults, includes an Agoda tax estimate, omits months with too few scans, and is not a live quote. It also explains page_url and book_url behavior, which is valuable context for interpreting results.

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?

The description is compact for the amount of useful information it conveys, with the primary purpose and use case front-loaded before caveats about data freshness and links. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers data provenance, the distinction from live quotes, omitted months, and what the returned links are for. Combined with the rich read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, including the destination slug format and the optional via attribution. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

States a specific resource and scope: typical nightly hotel price by month for a destination over coming months, plus cheapest months. It clearly distinguishes itself from a live quote and from generic hotel search, though it does not name the sibling tools it is not.

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?

Gives an explicit use case, "when is it cheapest to go to X?", and clarifies that results are historical estimates, not live quotes, with booking URLs for checking current prices. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against check_hotel_price and find_hotel_deals, 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.