Get bookings by arrival date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses pagination ('Pages through everything'), the header-with-counts return shape, the non-silent handling of cancelled bookings, and the exact eom_blocks column ordering. It does not mention auth/permission needs or whether the pull is read-only, which caps it below 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the date scope comes first, then pagination, then return structure, then the format special case. Sentences earn their place, though the domain shorthand 'ready for G5/N5/U5/Z5' assumes insider knowledge.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by describing the return shape (counts/totals header plus normalized rows) and the two output formats. Some gaps remain around epoch permissions and the snapshot/changes_since interplay, but the core call-and-interpret path is covered.

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% (baseline 3), and the description still adds value by restating inclusive date semantics and, importantly, explaining what format=eom_blocks actually emits (per-entity rows in EOM column order with DIRETTE having no commission). That output-side meaning goes beyond the schema's terse enum description.

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 (get bookings) and a precise scope: arrivals between arrival_from and arrival_to inclusive, or within month. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_booking (single) by describing range/month retrieval, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

Usage context is implied (date-range or month extraction for an EOM close), and 'Pages through everything' signals it handles large pulls. However, it never states when to prefer this over stays_in_month or changes_since, nor any exclusions, leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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