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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it specifies the operation returns a bounded page (implying pagination via limit/offset) and explicitly lists excluded data domains. It also states the scope is the authenticated organization, which informs authorization expectations. This aligns with annotations and adds value without contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('bounded page of physical room status metadata') and then clarifies exclusions. There is no wasted wording; every clause adds information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has four optional filter parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to filter by hotelId or roomTypeId, lacks pagination specifics (e.g., defaults, max values), and does not mention that limit/offset are used for the bounded page. While an output schema exists, it does not cover input parameter semantics. The description leaves an agent without enough information to correctly construct calls beyond simple unparameterized requests.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter usage. It does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, offset, hotelId, roomTypeId) or their semantics. Though parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, the agent gets no guidance on how to use them (e.g., that hotelId filters rooms for a specific hotel, or that limit/offset control pagination). This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the tool lists a bounded page of physical room status metadata within the authenticated organization, and explicitly enumerates excluded data categories (reservation, occupant, guest, access-control, channel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_room_types (which returns room types, not physical room status) and get_hotel_availability (which focuses on availability). The verb 'List' with a specific resource makes intent unambiguous.

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 provides context by stating what data is excluded (reservation, occupant, etc.), implying that those aspects should be handled by other tools. However, it does not explicitly name specific alternative tools or provide clear 'when to use' criteria. An agent would need to infer that get_hotel_availability or get_hotel handles reservations, which is not stated. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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