diagnose_rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about output (per-supplier status, rate breakdown) but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like data freshness, error handling, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate for lack of additional behavioral depth.

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 relatively concise, with a clear first sentence stating purpose followed by a structured Args section. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'e.g.' examples), but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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 moderate complexity and an existing output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains inputs and output content. It lacks details about error scenarios or pagination, but the combination with annotations and output schema makes it sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully describes each parameter: hotel_id (type), checkin/checkout (format), num_adults (default), and rate_sources (optional, with comma-separated examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Diagnose rate availability and source statuses for a specific hotel.' It explains the use case ('investigate why certain rates are or aren't showing') and distinguishes from siblings like compare_rates or get_multi_night_rates by focusing on diagnostic breakdown per supplier.

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 description implicitly guides usage by stating 'Use this to investigate why certain rates... are or aren't showing.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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