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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further by disclosing the return shape (Markdown table with named columns) and two edge-case behaviors: an unknown destination returns suggested names, and no match reports the hotel as not covered. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though rate limits or pagination beyond `limit` are unmentioned.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then ranking example, then output/edge cases. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical column list is the only slightly heavy element.

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 takes on the burden of describing returns and does so (Markdown table, up to limit rows, columns listed, axis score column when sorting). Combined with the error behaviors for unknown destinations and no matches, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it shows how `destination` and `sort_by_axis` combine ('quietest rooms in Tokyo' → destination 'tokyo', sort_by_axis 'noise'), clarifies sort_by_axis replaces overall-score ranking, and explains that limit caps the returned table rows. That exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 ('finds hotels by name, destination or brand') plus what it returns (score, slug, page url), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'the other tools take that slug, so this is the lookup when the slug is not already known.' An agent can route to it without opening another 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 a clear use condition: this is the lookup tool when the slug is not already known, with the alternative (slug-taking tools) identified generically. No sibling is named explicitly and there is no explicit when-not guidance, but the routing logic is unambiguous.

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