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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds that it returns matching properties with rates, photos, and availability across 2M+ properties (LiteAPI), disclosing the data source and result contents. No contradictions.

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?

Three well-organized sentences: first states purpose and filters, second describes returns, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with key information.

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 search tool with 9 parameters, high schema coverage, no output schema, the description adequately explains return content (rates, photos, availability) and data source. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema covers 89% of parameters with descriptions. Description lists filters, echoing schema, and provides examples for amenities (e.g., 'wifi, gym, pool'). While not adding deep semantics, it groups and clarifies. Schema coverage is high, so 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?

Description clearly states the tool searches hotels, lodging, accommodations, resorts, etc. It lists specific filters (city, country, dates, room type, price, star, amenities) and indicates returns include rates, photos, availability. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_flights.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user wants to book a hotel, find a place to stay, compare lodging options, or pick a resort.' This provides clear context, though no explicit when-not-to-use statements (but implications from sibling names are clear).

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