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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description adds context rather than repeating it: it discloses that no dates are required, that a room branch returns a narrower page, and that a non-inventory hotel resolves to its own site's address. That last edge-case behavior is real disclosure beyond the annotations, though rate limits or pagination are unmentioned.

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?

Information-dense but front-loaded: the primary effect ('published facts, with no dates needed') and returned fields lead, and the parameter sourcing and room branch follow. Slightly crammed as a run-on, but every clause carries operational 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 appropriately carries the return shape by naming the fields and nested room attributes, and it covers both the whole-hotel and single-room cases plus the non-inventory fallback. It is close to complete for a two-parameter read tool, missing only error/empty-result behavior.

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 both `hotel` and `room` are already documented in the schema. The description restates the id-or-domain flexibility and the rooms[].ref linkage, adding only marginal interpretation beyond the structured fields — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('A VibeBooking hotel's published facts') and enumerates exactly what comes back (name, address, check-in/cancellation terms, images, room types). The 'no dates needed' clause plus the 'with room, one room type's page instead' branch clearly distinguish it from get_rates and from a plain listing.

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?

Says where the `hotel` value comes from ('the id from search_hotels or resolve_hotel, or the hotel's domain') and when to add `room`, which is genuine routing guidance. It doesn't explicitly frame search_hotels/resolve_hotel as the alternative to use first when the hotel is unknown, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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