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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and destructive flags, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that — and it does, disclosing that prices are not returned and that the partner page carries them, plus that each listing has a tracked booking link. It says nothing about result caps or empty/did_you_mean handling beyond what the schema notes.

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 user-facing intent and then the payload contents. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition of the title or 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?

With no output schema and no annotations on return shape, the description correctly compensates by describing what comes back (hotel listings with tracked links, partner search links) and what does not (prices). Missing only minor details such as result-count behavior when limit truncates the list.

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 the parameters (city, country, limit with default 10 and range 1-50) are fully documented in the schema already. The description adds no format or syntax detail for those arguments beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific resource (hotel listings plus partner search links for a city) and states what is returned, so the agent knows this is the lodging tool rather than things_to_do or experiences. It never names a sibling tool to contrast against, which keeps it short of the top band.

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?

It gives two explicit trigger phrasings, 'where to stay in <city>' and 'hotels in <city>', which is actionable routing context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing at an alternative sibling when a query is only tangentially lodging-related.

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