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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating what the call actually returns (typical rate, monthly medians, cheapest months, double-credit status, benefits, nearby dining-credit restaurants), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It adds nothing about auth or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup that is minor.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the tool's purpose and keyed identifier come first, then the return payload. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 one-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and where the ID comes from. It stops short of noting any coverage limits (e.g., whether 'within 3 km' data is always present or what happens for hotels with no Edit benefits), which would fully close the loop.

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 one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance the schema lacks: the ID is a Chase hotel ID obtained from search_edit_hotels, which tells the agent where to source a valid value rather than guessing.

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 ('Details for one Edit hotel') and scopes it by a named identifier. It also points to the sibling tool (search_edit_hotels) that produces that ID, so an agent can place it relative to siblings without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical '(from search_edit_hotels)' tells the agent this is the follow-up detail call after a search, which is clear usage context. It does not, however, state any when-not condition or alternative for retrieving the same data another way.

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