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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by bounding the result set — explicitly stating that overview text, review ratings, photos, prices and booking links are NOT returned — which prevents an agent from promising unavailable data to a user.

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?

One tightly packed sentence plus a short negative-scope clause; the returned fields are front-loaded after the verb. The bilingual Korean parenthetical is partly duplicative but is short and aids non-English agents, so it does not seriously dilute the definition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the notable omissions, which is the key thing an agent needs. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and full annotations, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds an XOR constraint ('provide exactly one') that the schema does not encode — both properties are individually optional with no oneOf/anyOf structure. That missing constraint is exactly what the description supplies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get details of one hotel') and then enumerates exactly which fields come back (address, star rating, check-in/out, rooms, year opened), so the agent knows the payload shape up front. It also names the sibling that supplies hotel_id (gil_hotels_nearby), which disambiguates it from the other gil_* tools.

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 'provide exactly one' rule and the pointer to gil_hotels_nearby as the source of hotel_id imply a workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus gil_hotels_nearby (e.g. 'use gil_hotels_nearby first to discover ids, then this to enrich'). No exclusions or preconditions beyond the identifier constraint are stated.

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