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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is a cache/DB read with no live call, features are tri-state with null meaning unknown, distances are not available and must not be estimated, and features must not be claimed when null/absent.

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 compact but information-dense, starting with the core facts, then the feature semantics, then the key limitations and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the return content (stars, zone, categories, features, facility list, description) and clarifies edge-case semantics like null features and unavailable distances. For a simple two-parameter read tool, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents both the hotel and destination parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the single-hotel scope, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it holds static facts about one charter hotel, enumerating exactly what facts (stars, zone, categories, features, facility list, description). It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly stating 'No prices here (use charter_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?

The description clearly states the scope is 'ONE charter hotel' and explicitly routes price lookups to charter_hotel. It doesn't contrast with compare_hotels or other siblings, but the single-hotel facts-only framing gives an agent clear enough context for when to use it.

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