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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world): the Markdown-list return shape, the spread-vs-narrowed behavior across axes, the edge case of unnamed 'a guest review' hosts with no link, near-match behavior on an unknown slug, and the explicit 'no evidence on an axis' case. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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-loads the core purpose and then layers return format and edge cases efficiently. Some repetition of the schema's limit default/max costs it a point, but no sentence is purely 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: format (Markdown list), per-item fields (quote, outlet, document kind, url), sizing (limit), and the degraded cases (unnamed hosts, unknown slug, empty axis). Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 schema already documents all three parameters, including limit defaults and the category enum. The description largely restates these (default 12, max 40, spread when omitted) and only marginally enriches the category choice, making the baseline 3 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: it returns the cited quotes behind a hotel's scores, including outlet, document kind, and url. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_hotel (scores themselves), get_rates, and search_hotels, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Gives concrete use context ('Answers what a hotel is actually like: whether it is quiet, whether the beds are good, whether service holds up') and explicitly says to omit `category` for an open question. It never names an alternative sibling or states when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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