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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup. The description adds useful scope about what is provided and not available, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return format or freshness, though an output schema exists.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses. The parenthetical examples are dense but each clarifies the amenity scope, including useful negative availability information.

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 tool's low complexity, zero parameters, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It states the resource scope and explicitly covers both available and unavailable amenities.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. This matches the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 resource as amenities by room and building, with concrete examples of included and excluded features. It implicitly distinguishes this from get_property_overview and get_policies, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or route the agent.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_property_overview or get_policies. Usage must be inferred from the content alone.

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