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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds useful behavioral context by noting 'Best matches first' and listing the returned fields, which helps the agent set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: what the tool finds, how results are ordered, and what output fields are returned. No filler or redundancy.

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 the rich input schema covering all 8 optional parameters, explicit annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It adds the high-level user intent and result shape, and nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool 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 the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filter categories (country, destination, collection, amenities, budget) but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already gives; it is a useful orienting summary but not a meaning extension.

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 opens with 'Find hotels and private stays by plain words', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies this as a search tool. The optional filters and 'from' rate output further distinguish it from sibling retrieve tools like get_stay and list_destinations.

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 clearly presents this as the tool for finding stays by free-text words and filters, giving the agent an obvious trigger condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_stay for known stays, so it stops short of a full when-not, but the search-versus-get distinction is strongly implied.

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