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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: booking is unavailable through the connector (forcing the url hand-off), results are paged via next_offset, and broad limit requests are discouraged. It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or result-ordering, so it falls 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return payload, then constraints, then tactical guidance. No restatement of the title and no filler; each sentence either routes the agent or prevents a misuse.

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?

Despite 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return contents, the id hand-off contract, the booking limitation, and pagination. Nothing an agent needs to select or correctly invoke this tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine strategy beyond the schema by telling the agent which parameters to prefer for narrowing (rating, amenity, radius) and how offset/next_offset interact for paging, which the schema itself only labels neutrally.

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+resource+scope: 'Search bookable hotels by location and dates,' and immediately enumerates the returned payload (nightly prices, photos, coordinates, url, opaque id). This clearly separates it from the sibling detail and rate tools, which consume the id this tool emits.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: pass the opaque id to get_hotel_details and get_rates, narrow with rating/amenity/radius filters instead of a large limit, and page with offset using next_offset. It also sets an exclusion boundary by declaring booking is not available here and instructing the agent to link the user to the hotel url instead.

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