Hotel rooms and prices

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: rooms_left 0 means full, cancellation reflects the hotel's refund rule, and an empty rooms list means no availability rather than an error. It does not discuss rate limits or data freshness, keeping it below 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?

It is short and front-loads the core definition before the field explanations, with no filler sentences. The telegraphic fragment style ('rooms_left 0 = full') is efficient but slightly terse for an unfamiliar reader.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description still interprets the important output fields (price_toman, rooms_left, cancellation). Combined with the empty-result guidance, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly; only edge cases like multi-room pricing mechanics are left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: prices are independent of guest count, guests acts as a 'sleeps at least' filter, and price_toman is the post-discount whole-stay total for one room. This clarifies interpretation of both guests and the returned price beyond the schema text.

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 opening sentence names the specific resource (every room of a hotel) and what it returns (exact price for the dates), with the key outputs enumerated (whole stay, per night, rooms left, meals). An agent can distinguish this from mb_hotel (hotel details) and mb_hotel_calendar (availability calendar) 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?

It routes the agent explicitly to mb_hotel_calendar when the rooms list comes back empty, and gives the group-booking procedure ('add up several rooms for a group'). It does not spell out the broader when-to-use vs mb_hotel or the prerequisite that the hotel slug comes from mb_search_hotels, though that is covered in the schema.

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