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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it states prices are not returned and must be found on the partner page, and it clarifies the nature of the links (tracked booking links and partner search links). This is not redundant with annotations and helps set agent expectations.

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 the core purpose and read-only note, followed by the critical price caveat. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly scannable and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and three parameters, the description communicates the key return contents (listings with links, partner search links) and the price limitation. It does not detail exact response shape or pagination, but the essential information an agent needs to call and interpret the tool is present. The annotations cover safety traits.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'for a city', which the schema already covers. No extra value is provided for country, city, or limit.

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 states the tool returns hotels and stay partners for a city, specifies read-only, and enumerates the contents (hotel listings with tracked booking links and partner search links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like car_hire, experiences, or festivals without ambiguity.

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 makes the usage context obvious: use this tool when you need hotel/stay listings for a city. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings. Lacking an explicit 'use X instead' statement keeps it from a 5.

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