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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral quirk that a chain domain returns a property list instead of facts, plus the fact structure (as_of, source_url, evidence), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or recency/pagination behavior.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the parameter preference, then the edge case, then the return shape. Every fragment carries information; only the terse phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a 2-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, parameter preference, an important edge case, and the returned fact fields. It is largely sufficient, with the main gap being parameter format expectations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning by preferring property_id and explaining that a chain domain returns a property list, but it never defines the format or expected values of either parameter.

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+resource ('Latest cited facts for one hotel') and scopes the sources (own website or official register). It is clearly distinct from search_hotels, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_fact_changes.

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 one useful routing hint ('Prefer property_id') and explains the chain-domain edge case, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs the siblings get_fact_changes and search_hotels. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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