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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the tool is time- and state-gated, and on failure it returns remediation info rather than codes, which the agent needs to interpret a non-code response.

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 payload (returned codes) is front-loaded ahead of the availability constraints and the fallback behavior, so an agent gets the essential meaning in the first clause. One clause — explaining that the hotel has no 24h reception — is background rather than actionable, keeping it just short of maximally tight.

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 single-parameter, read-only, gated tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when it is available, and the failure mode. It omits only the meaning/source of stay_key and any authentication expectations.

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?

There is one required parameter (stay_key) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With no schema documentation and no description-level explanation of what a stay_key is or how to obtain it, the agent gets no semantic support for the sole input.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns: the portal code, room number, and door code. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_stay or get_folio, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with an alternative tool by name.

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 states the precise condition under which the codes are available — day of arrival, after 15:00, room cleaned — and what happens otherwise (it reports what is missing and when to retry). This is strong conditional context, but it is framed as hotel policy rather than 'use this tool when X, use another when Y', so no sibling alternative is offered.

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