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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no authentication required, the default/max on image fetching, and what the response contains ('a hotel object and optional additionalImages'). Minor gaps remain on error behavior for a bad hotelId, but this is well above what the annotations supply.

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?

One dense paragraph ordered as purpose, required input, optional inputs, return shape, auth, and usage intent — the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded. Every clause carries a fact; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return shape and the optional additionalImages field, plus auth posture and image limits, which is enough to call it confidently. It leaves invalid-ID/error handling unstated, a small omission for a read-only detail fetcher.

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 100%, so the parameter baseline is 3. The description reinforces that hotelId must be NUMERIC and traces it to search results, and repeats the imageLimit default/max and includeImages meaning, but this largely duplicates the schema rather than adding new semantics such as what a mismatched language does.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Fetches full descriptive details for one hotel') and enumerates the payload (name, address, coordinates, star rating, description, phone, amenities, photos, reviews), which is far beyond a restatement of the title. It never names the closest sibling, get_hotel_rooms, so an agent must infer the split between 'details' and 'rooms' from the phrase 'before they pick a room'.

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?

'Informational only — use it to enrich what you show the user before they pick a room' gives a clear usage context and implicitly places it before booking/room selection. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming get_hotel_rooms as the alternative when room inventory is actually needed.

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