check_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and side-effect information. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds that it 'returns available room types, prices, and booking details,' giving some behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state that no booking is made or that prices are not guaranteed, which would be useful for a tool carrying no annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action ('Check room availability and prices') and follow up with output details. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core purpose and return value. It does not go into detail about exact output fields or limitations, but it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by mentioning available room types, prices, and booking details.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented (e.g., hotelUrl, checkIn, checkOut, rooms, guests). The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, only echoing 'specific hotel' and 'given dates.' Since the schema already covers the parameters fully, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check room availability and prices for a specific hotel on given dates.' This specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('room availability and prices'), and scope ('specific hotel', 'given dates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_hotels (searching hotels) and compare_hotels (comparing options).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a 'specific hotel' and 'given dates.' It implies this tool is for checking availability rather than searching or comparing, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Sibling names like find_hotels and compare_hotels indicate alternatives, but the description itself could have explicitly said 'use this when you already have a hotel URL.'

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