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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The one genuinely additive sentence is the note that a fact answering "unknown, ask the hotel" is not confirmed by the hotel — valuable interpretation guidance for the returned data. Beyond that, nothing is said about response shape or granularity, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

Front-loaded and dense — the resource and its fact domains arrive in one sentence. The trailing "API v3." is vestigial metadata that earns no place in an agent-facing description.

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 read-only lookup with three enum params and no output schema, the description covers what kinds of facts exist but not how they are returned (flat key/value list? grouped by category? one record per room?), which matters given the 'room' category. The unconfirmed-fact note helps but the return shape remains unspecified.

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% and all three parameters are enum-documented, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, such as the defaulting behavior of lang or the effect of omitting category. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (one hotel and its rooms) and enumerates the fact domains covered: identity, operation, policies, location, pools, dining, services, accessibility, terms, rooms. That enumeration maps directly onto the category enum, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_room_details or compare_hotels, so it falls short of a 5.

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 (fetch facts for a single hotel, optionally one category) but never states when to choose it over siblings like get_room_details, compare_hotels, or get_venue, which overlap on hotel/room data. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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