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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/no-open-world annotations, the description discloses that only published chart or sampled award prices count with nothing estimated, that the caller's balance is not persisted, and the exact return shape (Markdown table or a no-fit sentence). This is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and its ranking logic, then supporting constraints and return format. Mostly tight, though the 'Fits a traveler who...' framing is slightly discursive for a tool definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return value, the ranking rationale, the price-sourcing constraint, and the caller-supplied balance, so an agent knows exactly what to expect and can call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that `points` is caller-supplied and not stored, that the balance drives feasibility for one night, and that output is capped at `limit` hotels.

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 names a specific verb and resource (lists hotels reachable with a points balance for one night) and states the distinctive ranking method (against the program's own norm rather than flat cents-per-point), which separates it from generic siblings like search_hotels and get_rates.

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 usage context: the traveler who states a holdings balance, e.g. 'I have 300k Hyatt points', and notes the balance is caller-supplied and not stored. It does not name alternatives (e.g. get_rates or search_hotels) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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