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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses hard caps (20 km, 20 results), result ordering (nearest first), the fields returned, explicit exclusions (no prices, review ratings, photos, booking links), and data provenance (partner/Agoda affiliate database). That last point is material because it tells the agent the data is third-party and may be incomplete.

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 definition is tightly front-loaded: scope, caps, output fields, exclusions, provenance, in that order. The trailing Korean parenthetical mostly repeats the English content, which is minor but unnecessary duplication.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the fields (star rating, address, WIA Pin Code) and the empties/edge behavior implied by the hard result cap. For a read-only lookup tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 ranges and defaults documented for lat, lng, limit and radius_km, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the caps ('max 20 km, max 20 results') but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List hotels within a radius ... of a coordinate') and immediately fixes scope: max 20 km, max 20 results, nearest-first ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by resource (hotels vs. gil_places_nearby) and operation (list vs. gil_hotel_detail).

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 usage context is implied by the constraints (radius cap, result cap, coordinate input), so an agent knows this is a proximity lookup. However, it never explicitly routes the agent to alternatives, e.g. 'use gil_hotel_detail for full property info' or 'use gil_places_nearby for non-hotel POIs', nor does it state when not to use it.

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