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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is free to add real value: results are ordered 'cheapest first,' filter semantics 'match the site,' and the response carries hotel_ids, a search_key, and a search_url. It stops short of describing pagination or result-count behavior beyond max_results.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the usage gate and the exclusion, then output shape, then filters. The mid-sentence filter and return enumerations are list-like but each maps to real capability; nothing redundant, though slightly packed.

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 a 16-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the routing decision, the return contents, and the downstream keys needed to chain into track_hotel and hotel_price_calendar. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the enum values, amenity lists, and bounds is already documented in the schema. The description's filter summary ('price, stars, guest rating, property kinds, amenities, free cancellation, hotels or vacation rentals, sort') mirrors the schema without adding semantics, so the 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (hotels) with an explicit scope gate: 'the traveler wants a place to stay for known dates.' It also names the sibling it is not for (add_hotel_bucket_list for flexible months), so the agent can route without opening any 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 an explicit when ('known dates') and an explicit when-not with the alternative named ('Not for flexible months (add_hotel_bucket_list)'). The downstream handoff to track_hotel and hotel_price_calendar is also spelled out.

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