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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a hard result cap of 6, the fields returned (place IDs and addresses), and the geographic coverage boundary. It does not mention auth requirements or what happens with zero matches, so not a 5.

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, each load-bearing: purpose+scope, output shape, and the dependency link to the booking tool. The most decision-relevant constraint (service area) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does, specifying count limit and the two fields returned. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and use its results.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 2-character minimum and format examples. The description's phrasing 'by name' slightly narrows the schema's stated 'Hotel name or address' input, adding no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 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 (Search) and resource (hotel) plus the scoping constraint (within Fold service areas, Los Angeles and San Francisco) and the result cap (up to 6). It also names the downstream consumer of its output (book_hotel_pickup via hotelPlaceIds), so an agent can distinguish it from the booking sibling immediately.

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 explicitly states that book_hotel_pickup requires one of the hotelPlaceIds returned here, which tells the agent when this tool must be called (as a prerequisite step before booking). The geographic limitation is also surfaced as an implicit exclusion — queries outside LA/SF will not yield usable IDs.

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