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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the tool works without an API key, prices appear only when both dates are supplied and represent the all-inclusive stay total, and parley_url carries the dates for live booking. It stops short of stating failure behavior for an invalid hotel_id.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and what is returned, then conditions and routing. Slightly over-written — 'Everything needed to describe the hotel is here; no web search needed' is reassurance rather than instruction — but no sentence is wasted enough to hurt.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the profile sections. For a read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the only real omission is error/edge behavior for a bad hotel_id or out-of-range dates.

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 all six parameters are already documented (rooms, guests, dates, currency, hotel_id). The description only restates the check_in/check_out pairing required for a price, which the schema also says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Full profile of one hotel by its hotel_id') and enumerates exactly what comes back: description, amenities, images, rooms, reviews, guest insights. It also names the sibling that supplies the id (search_hotels), so an agent can distinguish it from search_hotels without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this without an API key, but 'With an API key, prefer get_hotel' — a named alternative with a selecting condition. It also states the precondition for pricing (both check_in and check_out required) and asserts 'no web search needed', removing a plausible wrong-path.

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