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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/no destruction, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: no supplier call (consistent with openWorldHint=false), no price returned, results carry a hotelId, and the no-match branch returns nearby MBD hotels plus a contact link. Disclosing fallback behavior on empty results is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is before the matching rules and the no-match behavior. The parentheticals are dense but each earns its place; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still flags the hotelId field and the empty-result fallback. Combined with pagination via cursor and the price-scope exclusion, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 only 50%, so the description has to carry weight, and it does for the two most ambiguous parameters: city matches area words (e.g. "Antalya", "Business Bay") while search matches name words. Cursor is documented in the schema, and currency/language are self-explanatory enums, so the remaining gap is small but not zero.

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 ("Lists the curated hotel pool") and immediately bounds the scope: by country, area, stars, with facility tags, no supplier call, no price. An agent can tell this apart from a pricing tool because the description says a price requires dates and guests, which points at the quote_hotel_stay sibling without opening either schema.

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 a clear selection condition in the negative: this tool returns the pool, and pricing is explicitly out of scope because "a price needs dates and guests." It also explains the two search axes so the agent picks the right argument. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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