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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that with a content boundary — no prices, no availability — which prevents a common misuse. It does not discuss rate limits or failure behavior for an unknown property_id, which keeps it from 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?

One dense but well front-loaded sentence leads with the purpose and closes with the exclusion, so no sentence is wasted. The long enumeration of returned fields is justified by the absence of an output schema, though the parenthetical alias could be trimmed since the schema repeats it.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the categories of information returned and explicitly stating what is not returned. There is no realistic question an agent would have before calling this tool that the definition leaves open.

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 already documents both aliases and the default when absent (`voiles`). The description restates the `corniche` alias and the default hotel, so it adds confirmation rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 applies where 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?

Names a specific resource (property details for two named hotels) and enumerates exactly what is returned: location, stars, check-in/out times, included vs. excluded amenities, breakfast, rooftop, room categories, rate conditions and tourist tax. It also draws a hard boundary against sibling tools by stating it contains neither prices nor availability. An agent can distinguish it from create_booking_session without opening either 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?

States the use case explicitly (to DESCRIBE the hotel to a client) and routes the agent elsewhere when the need is pricing or availability, naming `create_booking_session` as the alternative. The exclusion is stated rather than inferred, which is exactly what the sibling set requires given competing tools like list_properties and get_rooftop_availability.

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