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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds something the annotations cannot: the exact sentinel value ('non disponibile') and the instruction not to infer missing rules but to redirect to the hotel's contacts. That is real behavioral guidance for the failure case. It does not describe response shape, but for a simple lookup that is minor.

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 with zero padding; the scope comes first and the fallback instruction second. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the data facets returned, and the missing-data behavior. Only the relationship to scheda_hotel is left unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter already documents its format and its provenance (elenco_hotel). The description adds no further meaning about the hotel identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource and the exact facets it returns (children, pets, check-in/check-out times), which separates it from a general hotel card or listing. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the split with scheda_hotel.

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?

Implies usage by scoping to 'a published hotel' and by prescribing a fallback when data is missing, but never states when to prefer this over scheda_hotel or elenco_hotel. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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