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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add operational detail — and it does: pagination via offset/limit with a 200 cap, that 'total counts matches', that 'as_of' is a UTC download date, and that 'verification_url' always links to GSA. Auth, rate limits, and error behavior are unaddressed, keeping it below 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?

Five compact sentences, each carrying distinct payload (scope, search semantics, country filter, pagination, provenance caveat), with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title.

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, so the description must explain return shape — and it lists the six property fields, the country_iso_code, the total count, as_of, and verification_url, plus the pagination contract. For a 4-parameter read-only list tool with zero required parameters, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 q, limit, offset, and country are already documented in detail (including the ZZ caveat and the get_countries resolution hint). The description restates the q matching rule and the offset/limit cap but adds little genuinely new semantic information about the parameters themselves; 'results include country_iso_code' and 'total counts matches' pertain more to output than inputs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists current worldwide FedRooms hotels') and enumerates the exact returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling hotel sources like get_fema_hotels_by_state_city or get_dssr_locations_by_country without opening any 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?

States the important boundary explicitly: 'No prices or availability; book through approved channels for the FedRooms rate,' which steers an agent away from misusing this as a booking or pricing tool. It does not explicitly compare itself to the other hotel-location siblings (FEMA, DSSR, DTMO), so the when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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