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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this returns the full property record and lists its sections, which is real context given there is no output schema. It omits the supplier-dependent date sensitivity, though that is carried in the schema rather than the description.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with the identification mechanism and alternative deferred to the clause that follows. No filler and nothing that repeats the tool title verbatim.

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?

For an 8-parameter read-only, open-world lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the returned field set and the origin of the key identifier, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor residual gap: it does not note whether pricing or live availability is included in the response.

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% across all 8 parameters, so the schema already documents ref, dates, occupancy, and the supplierCode/supplierHotelId alternative. The description restates the identification scheme but adds no format, default, or exclusivity rules beyond what the schema provides, making the 3 baseline appropriate.

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 (Get) and resource (hotel details) and enumerates the payload the caller receives (description, amenities, photos, policies, location). It also identifies the sibling that produces the `ref` (search_hotels), so the agent can position the tool within the hotel flow without opening the schema.

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 establishes the prerequisite — obtain `ref` from `search_hotels` — and offers the supplierCode + supplierHotelId fallback for identification. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. get_rooms for availability), but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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