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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the description needn't restate that. It does earn credit by disclosing the payload's shape — that filter scores ship with explanations and that caveats are included — which is meaningful return-side context absent from the annotations and from any output schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scoped by 'one hotel', then a compact enumeration of the returned fields. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response and largely succeeds by naming the Comfort Score breakdown, filter explanations, caveats, price and links. Error behavior for an invalid or stale hotel_id is the only notable gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents hotel_id and its origin in search_hotels. The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 hotel') and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: Comfort Score breakdown, per-filter scores with explanations, caveats, price and links. The singular scope implicitly separates it from list-oriented siblings like search_hotels and compare_hotels, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

The 'one hotel' framing implies this is the lookup-to-detail step, and the schema's 'from search_hotels' hint reinforces the workflow. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over compare_hotels or find_similar_hotels, nor what to do with an unknown id.

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