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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing what comes back (addresses, coordinates, booking links prefilled with the dates) and the prices omission. It does not cover result-count limits or how open-world lookups behave, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability and the return payload front-loaded and the price caveat placed last as a qualifier. Every clause carries information.

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 properly should describe returns, and it does (addresses, coordinates, booking links with dates prefilled). It stays silent on result volume and on what 'style' and 'adults' actually change in the results, which a six-parameter tool could reasonably spell out.

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 67%, and the description reinforces only city, near (area or landmark), and the dates' role in prefilling booking links. It says nothing about 'style' (the one enum) or 'adults', leaving those to the schema alone. This is adequate given partial schema documentation but adds limited meaning beyond it.

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 ('Find hotels in a city') plus the return payload (addresses, map coordinates, prefilled booking links). The resource is unambiguously distinct from siblings like search_flights, find_food_spots, and search_transfers, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 optional 'near' clause signals the near-a-landmark use case, and 'Does not show prices — the booking links do' draws a clear boundary telling the agent not to use this tool to answer price questions. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer another tool, but no sibling competes for the same hotel search, so the gap is minor.

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