ihg_get_room_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the return format beyond 'including points options.' This is a significant gap for a tool that may involve network calls or data retrieval.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. This is an example of efficient, concise writing.

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 simplicity (3 fully described parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks context on when to use it (e.g., after searching for a hotel) and what the response structure will be. The description mentions return content ('room types, rates, points options') but does not elaborate on format or potential errors. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (hotel_id, check_in, check_out), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves, only noting 'points options' as part of the output. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully covers parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('available room types and rates for a hotel on specific dates'), and adds 'including points options' to define scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ihg_get_hotel_details' and 'ihg_search_hotels' by focusing on rates and room types for specific dates.

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 implies usage context (checking room rates for specific dates) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks the explicit 'use this when...' guidance seen in well-documented tools, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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