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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns excerpts plus an identifier, the full text requires `fetch`, and it deliberately omits prices and availability. Only the excerpt size/ranking behavior is left unexplained.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the domain list is front-loaded, then the return/hand-off to `fetch`, then the negative scope. 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 only one parameter, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return shape (excerpts + identifier) and the fetch hand-off. It could still say something about result count or ranking, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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% for the single `query` parameter, and the schema already documents that it accepts French or English. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (cherche) and resource (ce que l'hôtel dit de lui-même) and then enumerates the covered topics (arrivée/départ, prix inclus, chambres, rooftop, annulation, animaux, privatisation). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the `fetch` sibling. An agent can tell exactly what this tool answers.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('`fetch` en donne le texte entier') and states the exclusion boundary ('Ne contient ni prix ni disponibilité'), which routes the agent to other siblings for pricing/availability. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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