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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that addresses, phone numbers, channel credentials, payment configuration, reminder configuration, and guest data are excluded, and that the scope is the authenticated organization. This sets clear expectations about data content.

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?

The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core function, scope, and exclusions. There is no redundant or filler language; every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

Given the output schema and strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, scope, pagination concept, and sensitive exclusions. It is slightly incomplete in not explicitly linking limit/offset to pagination behavior, but the schema constraints and standard conventions mitigate this.

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 0% and the description never mentions limit or offset explicitly. 'Bounded page' hints at pagination, but the description does not explain how limit controls page size or offset controls position, so the parameters lack semantic guidance beyond their names and constraints.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List a bounded page of non-sensitive hotel metadata in the authenticated Hotelumo organization.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by scoping to hotels, a paginated list, and non-sensitive fields, while siblings like list_rooms or get_hotel target other entities or full details.

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?

The description implies usage when a paginated hotel metadata list is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It lists exclusions but leaves the agent to infer that sensitive details might come from get_hotel or similar siblings.

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