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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: each offer contains a price, board type, and refundability, and booking is unavailable in this connector. It does not cover rate limits or auth requirements, but those are less critical here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence carries operational value: what the tool returns, and the booking limitation. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully explains the offer shape (price, board type, refundability) and booking limitation. It still leaves optional date/guest override semantics to the schema, but overall the definition is sufficient for calling the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only restates that hotel_id comes from search_hotels and adds no meaning for guests, check_in, or check_out beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get room rates for a hotel id'. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling search_hotels and get_hotel_details in substance, but the description itself does not explicitly name what it is not or contrast with those siblings.

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 prerequisite: the hotel_id comes from search_hotels. It also states a usage boundary and alternative for booking: 'Booking is not available through this connector; send the user to Pilot to book.' However, it does not explicitly compare this tool against get_hotel_details.

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