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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-structural context by delimiting the payload's negative scope (no prices, no availability), which prevents an agent from assuming booking data is present. It does not mention auth requirements, data currency, or language/locale of the returned text.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the purpose and enumerates the payload, the second immediately carves out the excluded data and names the sibling that provides it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it enumerates the returned fields thoroughly. The read-only, idempotent nature is covered by annotations, so nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a no-argument fetch of a fixed property.

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 concrete resource (the Hôtel-Rooftop Les Voiles property sheet) and enumerates exactly which facts it returns — location, stars, check-in/out times, included/excluded amenities, breakfast, rooftop, room categories, rate conditions, tourist tax. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that handles the other half of the domain, create_booking_session, which supplies prices and availability.

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 routes the agent: use this tool to describe the hotel, and do NOT use it for prices or availability — those come from `create_booking_session`. That is both a positive use condition and a named alternative for the excluded case, which is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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