Stays overlapping a month (pro-rata)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does convey real behavior beyond the schema: pro-rata revenue treatment, night-overlap logic, and the three aggregation axes. But it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or how an empty month is handled.

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 core computation and aggregation grain. The verification rationale in the second sentence is slightly self-referential but does justify the tool's existence, so little is wasted.

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-oriented analytics tool with no output schema and full schema coverage on inputs, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what the result contains (rows plus per-property/portal/entity totals). Pagination and exact return shape remain unstated, but that is a minor gap given the tool's reporting nature.

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%, with all four parameters documented including enum values, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of totals 'per property, per portal and per entity' loosely maps to the entity/company filters and include_rows, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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 computation (bookings overlapping the month, nights inside the month, pro-rated revenue) and its aggregation grain (per property, per portal, per entity). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_bookings and get_booking, which return raw bookings rather than month-overlap analytics.

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 second sentence hints at a use case (reproducing Smoobu Analytics' convention so results can be verified), which implies when this tool is relevant. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with get_bookings or states when NOT to use it, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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