Exact stay price

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: availability validation with available=false plus reason, stay-length and guest-capacity checks, the rule that an unbookable late checkout still returns a quote with late_checkout.available=false, and the caveat that discounted nights are rounded to 1,000 so nightly can exceed nights_total. This is genuinely useful operational detail.

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 the core purpose in the first clause, then the breakdown, then the validation/exclusion rules. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint (rounding, availability, late checkout, login exclusions).

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 values need not be explained, yet the description usefully clarifies the non-obvious rounding relationship between nightly and nights_total, plus failure semantics for availability and late checkout. Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 adds real semantic meaning: 'guests' is interpreted as base occupancy with extra-guest charges applied above it, and late_checkout_hours is framed as optional and only valid for offered rooms. That clarifies how inputs map to pricing behavior rather than merely restating field docs.

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 (get) and resource (amount to pay in Toman for a room/dates/guests) and enumerates the returned components (nights_total, extra-guest charge, late checkout, total). This clearly separates it from siblings like ot_room (details) and ot_room_calendar (availability display).

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?

Gives explicit context: 'Use before the user books on otaghak.com,' and notes that coupons and wallet credit need login and are excluded. It does not name alternatives (e.g., ot_late_checkout or ot_room) or say when not to use it, 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.