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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a key trait: results are observational deltas, not confirmed policy changes, which prevents misuse. However, it says nothing about permissions, capture windows, result completeness, or ordering.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the most important caveat. No filler, though the fragments are slightly telegraphic.

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?

The critical framing (observed vs. confirmed changes) is present, which is the most valuable thing an agent needs. But with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves gaps about return contents and parameter semantics.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It only notes that the identifiers match get_hotel_facts and that the scope is 'one hotel,' leaving 'domain' entirely unexplained and giving no format or value guidance for 'property_id.'

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 concrete resource ('observed value differences across captures for one hotel') and scopes it to a single hotel, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_fact_changes/get_hotel_facts pair by framing this as a diff view. It does not use a strong action verb, but the resource and scope are 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 implies the use case (seeing what changed over time) and warns that the deltas are not confirmed policy changes, but it never states explicitly when to call this instead of get_hotel_facts or search_hotels. Sibling routing is only hinted at via 'Same identifiers as get_hotel_facts.'

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