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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description earns credit beyond them by disclosing that SearchAPI does not apply the text query or style preferences inside the radius, that provider coverage may be incomplete, that prices may change, and that only a unique identity match retains offer links.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then walks through the modes in compact sentences with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries behavioral or routing information, so it stays appropriately sized.

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 12-parameter, zero-required, multi-mode tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting of explaining the modes, the radius caveats, and the check-in/check-out gating implied by the schema. Return-shape detail is absent, but it discloses offer-link behavior, which is the key observable outcome.

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 schema already documents all 12 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter interaction semantics for hotel_place_id combined with radius_meters, but does not add format or constraint detail beyond what each property description already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search for hotels and accommodations") and then distinguishes the tool's operating modes (ordinary text query vs dated radius search vs hotel_place_id lookup). It is clearly not a generic search, though it never names sibling tools like places_search or search_attractions to sharpen the boundary against them.

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 explains when each mode applies: plain text query for ordinary searches, bounding box plus distance for dated radius searches, and hotel_place_id with or without radius_meters for identity vs nearby lookups. This is genuine when-to-use guidance, but it stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions within the tool family.

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