post_analytics_hotels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ranking dimension and the returned fields, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, aggregation window behavior, or auth requirements — modest added value over the structured 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?

Front-loaded with a clear overview, which is good, but the content is heavily padded: 'Perfect for identifying your best-selling properties' is marketing filler, and the Quick Start section largely restates the Overview. The 'What You Get' list is useful given there is no output schema, but the overall piece is longer than its information content warrants.

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 'What You Get' section genuinely earns its place by enumerating the return shape: hotel rankings, booking counts, sales totals, city/country, and IDs. That covers the main gap. It would be complete with a note on result caps, ranking tie-breaks, or whether the date range is inclusive.

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% for both date parameters, each documented as ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD in the schema itself. The description only says 'Provide a date range,' adding no format, boundary, or timezone semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 overview states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a ranked list of your top-performing hotels by booking volume and sales.' This is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic booking-retrieval siblings, but it never differentiates itself from close neighbors like get_bookings_hotels_sales_report or post_analytics_report, which the agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 'When to Use' section supplies scenario contexts (dashboards, sales analysis, inventory insights, partnership optimization) but frames them as audiences rather than conditions. It names no alternatives and gives no exclusion criteria, so the agent gets implied usage rather than routing guidance.

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