hotel_price_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the default window (90 forward dates ≈ 3 months, one row per date) and the per-item fields, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, authentication, caching, or how unavailable dates are represented beyond the 'available' field name.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then an output-shape sentence, then a compact Args list. Efficient overall, with only minor redundancy (the 90-date default is stated in both the prose and the Args entry).

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 10-parameter, annotation-free tool, the description covers every argument and the default output window. Since an output schema exists it need not enumerate return values, making the item-field sentence mild redundancy rather than a gap.

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, and it does: hotel_url format, ISO date format for start_date, number_of_dates default and meaning, nights semantics (1 = per-night rate), ISO 4217 currency, and what gl/hl control. All ten parameters get meaningful clarification rather than restatement.

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: returns a daily rate calendar for one Google Hotels property. The singular 'one property' and the daily-calendar framing distinguish it from the sibling search tools, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the hotel_url argument being a Google /travel/hotels/entity/<token> URL hints that the property must first be found via search_hotels, and the pricing semantics (nights=1 per-night rate) suggest the pricing use case. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative appears.

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