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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that each listing carries a tracked booking link and that prices are deliberately omitted and live on the partner page.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then a clipped note on what it does not return. The parenthetical marker is redundant with annotations but costs almost nothing.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so well (listings, tracked booking links, partner search links, no prices). It stops short of mentioning the did_you_mean fallback behavior for unknown cities, though the schema covers that.

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 100% and the schema already documents city slugs, the limit range (1-50), and country optionality. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource combination: returns hotel listings/partner links for a city, explicitly read-only. The scope ('hotels and stay partners for a city') clearly separates it from siblings like car_hire, experiences, and festivals.

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?

Usage is implied by the content description (an agent knows to call it when it needs lodging for a city), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling alternatives named to route between, e.g., experiences vs. stays.

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