Get stay calendar

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default and maximum date ranges, which is useful behavioral context not in the annotations, but says nothing about pagination, truncation at the 120-day limit, or missing-price behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the operative date-range bounds. No filler whatsoever.

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 read-only tool with a fully described three-parameter schema and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: an agent knows the resource, the unit, the currency, and the date-range limits. It is only slightly thin on the relationship to get_stay, which matters for sibling routing.

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 would be 3, but the description adds the default window (today + 30 days) and the 120-day cap that the schema does not express. Those are genuine constraints on from/to that help the agent construct valid calls.

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 names the specific resource (per-night availability and price for one stay) and even specifies the currency (Toman), which is meaningful detail. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_stay, leaving the agent to infer the distinction between a stay summary and its calendar.

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 supplies a default window (today + 30 days) and a maximum span (120 days), which implicitly tells the agent the expected usage scope. It never states when to prefer this over get_stay or get_quote, so routing among siblings remains inference-based rather than explicit.

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