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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note, that every datum carries a source and status, which tells the agent the response is provenance-tagged. It does not say what happens when the identifier is unknown or the hotel is unpublished, which matters for a lookup tool with no output schema.

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 the resource and its field list, followed by the provenance note. No filler, though the field enumeration is a flat list rather than structured guidance.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what is returned and how it is annotated with source/status. The remaining gap is failure behavior for unknown or unpublished identifiers and the absence of any size or pagination note, minor for a one-record lookup.

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 hotel parameter already documents its format and points back to elenco_hotel, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about identifier syntax, case sensitivity, or slug rules beyond 'un hotel pubblicato'.

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 a specific resource (a published hotel) and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, type, address, contacts, website, services, short description. It is clearly a detail-lookup tool, distinguishable in spirit from elenco_hotel, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

The phrase 'un hotel pubblicato' implies a pre-condition (the hotel must exist and be published) and the enumerated fields imply a detail-view use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no pointer to elenco_hotel for discovery or to dintorni_hotel/regole_hotel for other facets. Usage must be inferred.

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