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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to address data safety. It adds value by specifying the output format: 'indicative nightly and total, rating and a URL that carries the dates', which informs the agent about expected results. This goes beyond annotations and enriches behavioral transparency.

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 exactly two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides essential output details without elaboration. Every word is purposeful.

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 search tool with 9 parameters and a rich schema, the description covers the core purpose and output clearly. It mentions key output nuances (indicative prices, URL with dates) but does not elaborate on edge cases or query parsing; however, the schema supplies those details. The description is reasonably complete given the schema coverage.

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 89%, meaning parameters are well documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'indicative' prices, which pertains to output rather than parameters. The high schema coverage justifies the baseline 3.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'Find', the resource 'hotels', and the scoping 'for a place, dates and party'. It also describes the output (up to 48 properties with indicative nightly and total, rating, URL with dates), which differentiates it from get_property and price_stay.

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 implies usage for searching hotels but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over siblings like get_property or price_stay. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, relying on the agent to infer its role from the purpose.

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