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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ranking methodology (relative to program norm) and a privacy trait ('this server stores nothing about anyone'), which is real added value. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether results are paginated, or how the response is shaped.

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?

Two sentences plus a short trailing clause, front-loaded with the ranking differentiator before the usage trigger. The privacy clause is somewhat parenthetical but earns its place by clarifying the data model. Minimal waste.

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 an unannotated search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ranking logic, usage trigger, and data-handling posture. The main gap is return-value shape (count, fields, pagination), which nothing else supplies since no output schema exists.

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 including the limit default/max and the program examples. The description reinforces that points means the traveler's available balance, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (finds hotels reachable by a points balance) and adds a distinguishing detail: ranking is relative to each program's own norm rather than a flat cents-per-point scale. It is clearly different from get_rates and search_hotels, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 concrete trigger: 'Use it when a traveler says what they are holding - "I have 300k Hyatt points".' That is a clear context for invoking it. It stops short of any exclusions or explicit routing to alternatives for cash-rate searches.

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