Room prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: result ordering, what each field means (total, avg_night, list_total, rooms_left, free_cancel), and that non-bookable offers are surfaced in `not_bookable` with a reason. It adds no auth, rate-limit, or pagination-truncation behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, then the example, then return semantics — a sensible structure. The backtick field inventory is long but justified because there is no output schema; only the repeated date example is mildly redundant.

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 correctly takes on explaining the response shape and the not_bookable bucket, which is the main completeness risk here. The remaining gap is what `limit` (default 25, max 60) does to results — whether truncation is silent — which matters for an open-world listing tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents hotel formats, guests, nights, and check_in. The description adds no new meaning for `limit`, `guests`, or `nights`, and its only parameter-relevant contribution is the Jalali date example that echoes the schema's own note. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a hotel's bookable rooms with the price for the stay') plus the ordering guarantee ('cheapest first'), and the per-stay rate-plan framing distinguishes it from date-level price tools like eg_price_calendar. An agent can tell exactly what comes back without opening the schema.

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 worked example ('how much is a double room at Parsis on 1405-08-19 for 2 nights') plus the closing 'This tool only reads prices; it cannot reserve' give clear use context and one explicit exclusion. It stops short of naming when to prefer eg_price_calendar, eg_deals, or eg_hotel instead, so the sibling routing is left to inference.

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