Check allocation for a stay

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a behavioral boundary: it does not reproduce Pitchup's pitch assignment or price calculation. It still says nothing about the shape of the returned allocation data or how absence of allocation is signalled.

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 first sentence is a fragment with no main verb, so the reader must infer the action, and the second is a long clause-chained sentence. Both carry useful information, but front-loading is weak and the phrasing is denser than it needs to be.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does indicate the two things returned: per-night allocation and arrival-date rules. It leaves the ambiguity of how 'no allocation' is represented unresolved, which is the main gap for a check-style tool.

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% and all three parameters are documented, including the subtle 'last night is the day before' departure convention. The description restates the stay as '(arrive to depart)' and the single-pitch-type scope, but adds no syntax, date-format, or ID-lookup guidance 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 identifies a specific resource (nightly allocation plus arrival-day rules for one pitch type over a stay) and implicitly distinguishes itself from get_pricing and list_pitches by saying it does not reproduce pitch assignment or price calculation. The open is a verbless noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement, which costs it the top mark, but the scope is still understandable.

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 frames the tool against the documented bookability rule ('bookable when every night has allocation, a pitch is free... and prices cover the period') and states it checks only the first of those, explicitly naming what it does not do. That is a clear use boundary, though it never names the sibling tools (e.g. get_pricing, list_pitches) an agent should reach for instead.

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