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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload in detail, including the caveat that award price appears only 'where a real one exists' — a genuine behavioral nuance. It is silent on error behavior for an unknown slug and on whether any auth is required, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its payload, then the routing advice. The enumerated return contents are dense but each clause earns its place; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the returns, and it does so thoroughly — score, eight axes, coverage depth, loyalty program, award price. Combined with the explicit hand-off to get_evidence, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only error/permission behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single slug parameter is already documented with format and an example in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, casing, or resolution guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('The RoomExpert verdict for one hotel') and enumerates exactly what the verdict contains: overall score, eight axis scores, coverage depth, loyalty program, award price. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_evidence by noting that tool supplies the underlying quotes.

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 usage scenarios ('is this hotel any good', 'what is it strong at') and explicitly routes the agent to get_evidence when it needs the quotes behind the scores. It does not address the other siblings (get_rates, search_hotels, find_award_stays) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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