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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a 14-night window within 120 days, data freshness caveat ('as last checked'), a hard capability limit (no booking), and a response-size warning for long ranges. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by hard limits and the size caveat; no filler or restatement of the title. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, time window, freshness, response-size risk, and the no-booking boundary. A brief hint at the shape of the returned data (per-hotel list vs single rate) would close the last 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a selection heuristic not present in the schema ('ask for the fewest days you need; long ranges are large') and restates the combined date/days window. That is meaningful guidance on how to choose values, not just a repeat of the field docs.

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 states a concrete query ('which hotels at a supported resort have rooms on given nights, or their lowest rates'), which pins down both the resource (hotels) and the returned information (availability plus lowest rate). It implicitly separates itself from park-availability siblings by scoping to hotels, though it never names an alternative tool 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?

It gives a clear trigger ('Use this when a visitor asks which hotels...') and an explicit boundary ('Parky cannot book hotels'), plus a practical constraint ('Ask for the fewest days you need'). What is absent is any explicit contrast with a sibling such as park or ticket pricing lookups, so the routing guidance 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.