Get prices and stay rules

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and delivers real behavioral facts: results are restricted to future arrival days, and two filters are applied server-side after an internal lookup rather than being pushed to the API. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the added constraints are substantive.

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 purpose and returned-field list are front-loaded, and the filter behavior follows in a compact final sentence. It is a touch dense in the enumeration of return fields, but every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields in detail, and it covers the significant future-arrival-days limitation and filter semantics. Only minor gaps remain: no mention of result-size/pagination behavior tied to max_results, and no explicit sibling routing.

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 already 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies that `date` is a single-day filter versus the range semantics of after/before, and that charge type and pitch type are alternative filter axes. The only untouched parameter is max_results, which the schema covers by default/min/max.

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 and resource ('Prices and stay rules from arrival days') and even names the backing endpoint, then enumerates exactly what is returned (pitch price, extra adult/child/infant prices, min/max stay, CTA/CTD, status, pitches sold/left). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_charge_types or check_availability.

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 gives filter usage (filter by one date or after/before, filter by charge type or pitch type) and a key constraint (only future arrival days are returned), which implies when the tool applies. However it never explicitly routes the agent away from alternatives such as check_availability (availability only) or list_charge_types, leaving the when-not case to inference.

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