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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with that by framing the call as launching external research rather than reading an existing record. It adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: a ~1 minute latency, the requirement to call twice to retrieve the page link (consistent with idempotentHint=true), and a members-only access restriction on rates.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling routing before the timing and access caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the member-rates note is only loosely tied to the calling action.

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, the description usefully covers the two-step retrieval pattern, the ~1 minute latency, and what the resulting page contains (review findings, member-only rates). Only the failure/timeout behavior of the async research is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents hotel and city. The description reinforces the pairing ('call again with the same hotel and city') but adds no format or validation meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Ask HotelShortlist to research a hotel') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling search_hotels by scoping to hotels search did not find. An agent can tell this apart from search_hotels 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?

Explicit routing condition: use it for a hotel that search_hotels did not find, which names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. It does not spell out a when-not case beyond that implicit opposite, so it falls just short of the top band.

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