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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data provenance ('measured from recent searches'), the orientation-only caveat, and the meaning of a has_price_data=false result.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger, scope/provenance, caveat plus error semantics. Front-loaded with the use case and free of repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still explains the has_price_data flag, which is the key edge case. It omits any hint about how the stars filter affects results, a minor gap for a tool that is otherwise complete.

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%, so the schema already documents place_id, month, stars and language with defaults and patterns. The description adds only marginal semantic value ('per night, 2 adults', 'this place and month'), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource and scope: 'typical price range per night (2 adults) at a place, measured from recent searches.' It implicitly separates itself from search_hotels by framing the result as orientation data rather than live bookable prices, but it never names a sibling tool to make that distinction explicit.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('Use for budget questions (what does a night cost in …)') and a boundary ('For orientation only — current prices for specific dates are on hoteldiscount24.com'). The exclusion points to an external website rather than to the sibling search_hotels tool, so the routing guidance is good but not complete.

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