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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotations, disclosing the asynchronous streaming/polling model, the `searchStatus` lifecycle, the 0-indexed-on-both-request-and-response pagination quirk, and that no authentication is required. These are non-obvious operational behaviors an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loads purpose and polling behavior before parameters, and every sentence carries operational content. It is dense and the extended `discountScore` explanation spans several clauses, edging toward overstuffed but without genuine waste.

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 fully compensates by enumerating returned fields (`hotels[]`, `totalCount`, `hasMore`) and explaining `discountScore` semantics. Combined with the polling and pagination guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is already high, but the description still adds meaning: it clarifies that `page` is 0-indexed on both request and response echo, explains `sortBy` VALUE_DESC in value terms, and enumerates the filter keys with examples like minDiscountScore 20. It largely restates `size` (5000) which is already in the schema.

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 and resource ('Returns the hotel results for a running search') and ties it to the originating `hotel_search` via `searchKey`. This clearly distinguishes it from `hotel_search`, `get_hotel_details`, and `get_hotel_rooms`, which are named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to POLL until `searchStatus` equals `COMPLETED` and explains the `IN_PROGRESS` state, which is essential usage guidance. It also names the next step: pass a chosen `hotelId` with the SAME `searchKey` to `get_hotel_rooms`, establishing a clear workflow handoff.

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