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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral boundaries: it returns search links only, no live rates/availability/reviews/reservations, and the Booking.com link is regionalized to the traveler's country. It also surfaces the affiliate-disclosure requirement, which is valuable context an agent would otherwise miss. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core output, then adds regionalization, use case, limitations, and affiliate disclosure in separate sentences. Each sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, the scope of the result, the regionalization behavior, and important caveats. The existing output schema relieves the description from explaining return-value structure.

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%, with every parameter documented in the schema itself. The description adds a high-level mention of optional dates, guest count, and room count, but no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Build') and a clear resource: a Booking.com search link for a city or property, plus IHG brand links and VoyageHacks guides. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_booking_links, 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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Useful when a user asks where to stay, or about hotels, hostels or apartments in a place.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for lodging-search requests.

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