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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the payload shape (verified facts with source URL and check date, notes, contact, booking engine, record page, JSON API URL) and explicitly flagging the negative space ('No prices or photos') and the booking_link redirect with src=entityindex.

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 usage trigger before the return payload, and the sentence about returned data is dense but informative rather than padded. The single long enumeration of return fields is slightly heavy but every item carries selection value.

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 takes on the return-value burden and handles it well, listing the record contents and explicitly excluding prices and photos. It omits error behavior for an invalid slug and any auth or rate-limit context, which are minor for a read-only lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the slug's origin ('slug from search_hotels') and repeats the example already present in the schema, and says nothing about the lang parameter, so it adds little meaning beyond structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the full verified record of one hotel') and scopes it to a single property, which cleanly separates it from the plural search_hotels list tool it references. It does not address the sibling get_entity, so an agent cannot fully rule out overlap with the generic entity getter from this text alone.

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 gives explicit sequencing ('Use after search_hotels') and the triggering intent ('when the user wants details or a booking link for one property'), plus identifies where the required slug comes from. No exclusions or failure conditions are stated (e.g. what to do if the slug is unknown), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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