Check availability

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the call returns free-night information and a price quoted in Toman, and it is a quote only, not a hold or reservation. It does not mention behavior for fully booked dates or whether the quote includes fees/taxes.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary capability is front-loaded ahead of the scope boundary. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of describing what comes back (free nights plus a Toman quote). However, for a 5-parameter tool with 60% schema coverage, the silence on guests and discount_code leaves a noticeable gap in call correctness.

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 60%, and the description supplies no parameter-level meaning at all. The undocumented parameters, guests and discount_code, receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, so an agent must guess whether a discount code is validated, optional, or affects the returned quote.

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: checking free nights and a Toman price quote for an accommodation. It also draws a clear boundary by saying it does not book, which separates it from the reservation path via listing_url. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sh_search_accommodations or sh_get_accommodation, so not a 5.

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?

Provides an explicit exclusion ('Does not book') and names the alternative tool (listing_url) plus where the reservation happens (shab.ir). It lacks a positive when-to-use trigger such as checking availability after finding an accommodation via search, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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