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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the schema by disclosing the return shape ('reference, guest, arrival date and status') and the auth prerequisite ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'). It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema's cursor field.

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 the two search modes before the routing hint and auth note. Sentences are information-dense with little redundancy, though the 'the way the Inbox search bar and Advanced Search do' clause is slightly filler for an API consumer.

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 usefully names the key returned fields (reference, guest, arrival date, status), states the auth requirement, and links to get_booking for details. Adequate for a read-only search tool; only pagination semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 both the date-range fields, query, cursor and the arrival/booked enum are already documented in the schema. The description restates the date/query logic but adds no new syntax or format details, 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Search bookings') and defines the search axes (arrival/booked date, reference, guest name, email). It distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to 'acknowledged and new bookings' and pointing to get_booking for detail, so an agent can tell it apart from hostelworld_list_new_bookings and hostelworld_get_booking.

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?

Gives clear alternate modes: 'Use a date range with date_type, or query for a booking reference, guest name or email.' It also routes deep-detail needs to get_booking. It does not explicitly exclude or contrast with the list_new_bookings sibling, leaving a small ambiguity for the agent.

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