get_hotel_stats

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 historical comparison and percentile rankings, which aligns with read-only behavior. No contradictory or missing behavioral details.

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?

Description is concise with a clear intro, usage guidance, and well-structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 the low complexity, schema coverage, and output schema existence, the description provides sufficient information about purpose, parameters, and return type (percentile rankings and value assessment). No major gaps.

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 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter's meaning and source (e.g., hotel_id as Vervotech property ID, nightly_cash_cost as current cash rate). This compensates completely for lack of schema descriptions.

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 it provides 'pricing analytics and percentile data for a hotel rate' and explains it shows historical comparison of cash and points rates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_hotels, book_hotel, etc.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to help users understand if a rate is a good deal', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like compare_rates or predict_price.

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