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

Annotations already communicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds what data is returned (room types, pricing, facilities, images, policies), but does not disclose behavioral traits like date-dependent availability, pagination behavior, or potential empty results. No contradiction 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 two sentences and the main action is front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first but does add facilities and policies, so it earns its place reasonably well.

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 should carry more weight in explaining return values. It does list key content areas, but it omits how pricing varies by dates/occupancy, pagination details, and response shape. Overall it is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent deciding whether the tool fully covers a request.

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 schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as date format expectations, occupancy impact, or pagination semantics, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed room information, prices, and images for a specific hotel.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling hotel_search by targeting a specific hotel rather than searching across hotels.

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 phrase 'for a specific hotel' implies this is for when a hotel_id is already known, but the description never explicitly says to use hotel_search first when no hotel_id is available. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implied.

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