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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: AND-semantics of the amenity filter, up to 10 results, star-rating ordering, intentional absence of prices and ratings, and the notice field carrying a caveat. It also warns that several apparent filters (halal, kosher, wheelchair access, non-smoking, cribs) are not supported here, which prevents a bad query.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: usage condition first, then result shape, then negative constraints, then exclusions with their alternative tool. No sentence is filler; each carries a distinct operational fact.

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 a 5-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotations, this covers what the structured fields cannot: filter semantics, result count and ordering, unsupported filters, and the notice field's meaning. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: amenities are conjunctive (all must match), and the result cap of 10 corroborates the limit maximum. It doesn't elaborate on min_stars or language, which the schema already covers adequately.

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 action (find hotels) and the qualifying condition (at a place, matching specific amenities), including the place_id + amenities framing that maps directly to the required parameters. It is clearly distinguishable from find_place, get_hotel_facts, and get_price_guide.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('user wants hotels at a place with specific features'), gives a fallback for thin results ('try fewer amenities'), and names the alternatives for adjacent needs — get_price_guide for prices and get_hotel_facts for per-hotel checks. This is a complete routing statement.

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