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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly does not. 'Facts are cited' hints at output provenance, but nothing is said about permissions, result format, ranking/relevance behavior, or pagination. 'precision is null' is unexplained and conveys no actionable 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. However, the dangling fragments 'Facts are cited' and 'precision is null' consume space without earning their place and break the structure.

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 3-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core handoff to get_hotel_facts but leaves result format, limit semantics, and region semantics unstated. It is adequate but has visible gaps given the absence of any supporting structured metadata.

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 33% (only query is documented). The description partly compensates by enumerating the kinds of values query accepts and by giving region examples (Algarve, Lisbon coast, Costa de la Luz), but the limit parameter and its 1-20 bound are never explained anywhere, so the gap is only partially closed.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb (Find) plus the resource (hotels) and the searchable keys (name, town, domain, register id), and it explicitly separates this tool from the sibling get_hotel_facts, which takes the property_id. The trailing fragments ('Facts are cited', 'precision is null') add noise rather than clarity, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow: this tool locates hotels, then you pass the resulting property_id to get_hotel_facts. That is clear context for selecting the tool, though there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of get_fact_changes.

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