Rate plans

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the content ('rate plans with cancellation policies') and the optional filter. It does not explicitly indicate that this is a safe read-only operation, nor does it mention error conditions, permissions, or output structure. The lack of a verb leaves the action implicit, and no behavioral traits beyond a noun phrase are disclosed.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core resource and follows with the scope and optional filter. Every word contributes meaningful information with no redundancy, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately conveys what is returned ('rate plans with cancellation policies') and the optional filtering behavior. It does not detail the return shape, but the low complexity and full schema coverage mean this is not a significant gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's basic function.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, with property described as the WebHotelier code and room as the code to filter by. The description's phrase 'optionally filtered to one room type' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the room parameter. It also does not introduce any syntax or format details, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource as 'rate plans with cancellation policies' scoped to a property with optional room-type filtering. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the tool name and the noun phrase combine to make the purpose unambiguous. This also distinguishes it from siblings like get_best_rate by focusing on rate plans rather than best available rate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_best_rate, get_availability, or get_offers. The only usage-related hint is the optional room-type filter, which is a parameter detail rather than a selection criterion. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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