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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the 'or not-found' outcome, which is genuine behavioral information beyond the annotations, but says nothing about permissions, error conditions, or lookup constraints such as whether the hotel must be active.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and scoping constraint. The middle sentence re-lists return fields that an existing output schema already covers, so it is mildly redundant, but nothing is padded or ambiguous.

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 one fully documented required parameter, rich annotations and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns conceptually, the not-found case, and what it is not for. No material gaps remain.

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 a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the 24-hex-character id format and pattern. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 ('get one hotel's setup') and enumerates the concrete attributes returned (check-in/check-out times, currency, country, timezone). It also explicitly rules out neighboring concerns ('Not for room availability or prices'), so an agent can separate it from get_hotel_availability and list_daily_rates without opening a 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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Use this when someone asks about one hotel's setup') plus an explicit exclusion for availability and prices. It does not name the specific sibling tool to use instead (e.g., get_hotel_availability), so routing is implied by category rather than stated, but the when/when-not framing is present.

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