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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It adds that each hotel listing has a tracked booking link, that partner search links are included, and that prices are deliberately not returned. This is useful behavioral detail with no contradiction.

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 with the main resource and read-only nature front-loaded, followed by the exact result contents and the price limitation. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 explains what is and is not returned: hotel listings with tracked links, partner search links, and a clear price caveat. It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is acceptable for a simple read-only tool; only a brief note on when to prefer a sibling tool 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 city, country, and limit are already documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'for a city' restates the main scope but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, keeping it at the baseline 3.

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 clearly identifies the resource as hotels/stay partners for a city and frames it as read-only, with hotel listings and partner search links. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'search' and does not name a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The context 'for a city' plus 'hotels and stay partners' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like experiences or car_hire. No alternatives or when-not conditions are given.

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