get_price_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool shows (nightly prices, lowest/highest dates, average pricing), which covers the output behavior. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, error conditions, or dependencies beyond the schema, missing an opportunity to provide richer context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, what it shows, and target user. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return value by mentioning nightly prices, lowest/highest dates, and average pricing. It is reasonably complete for a read-only price lookup tool, though it does not discuss edge cases or error handling, which prevents a perfect score.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only implies the relevance of 'multiple dates' to the startDate and nights parameters. The schema already documents each parameter clearly, so the description adds marginal value.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Get prices for a hotel across multiple dates.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on price comparison across dates and deriving insights like lowest/highest dates and averages, which is distinct from availability checks or hotel search.

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 for when to use the tool: 'Useful for flexible travelers looking for the best deal.' This implies the tool is for date-flexible price comparison rather than single-date checking. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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