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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral qualifier beyond that: only 'published' details are returned, and the word 'all' signals a complete, non-truncated record. It does not describe behavior for an unknown room_id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents, then the identifier source and the sibling hand-off. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter read with an output schema, and the description already previews the returned sections and language handling. Nothing an agent needs in order to select or invoke it is missing.

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 100%: room_id carries its source and example pattern, and language carries its enum and default. The description only echoes the room_id sourcing already present in the schema and says nothing about the language parameter, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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 resource (one room type) and enumerates exactly what comes back: description, size, guests, features, facts, photos with alt text, FAQ and page URL. This makes it trivially distinguishable from list_rooms (many rooms) and check_availability (prices on dates), both of which are named.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Use the room_id from list_rooms') and an explicit alternative for the most likely confusion ('For prices on dates use check_availability'). The agent knows both where the identifier comes from and when to route elsewhere.

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