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

With annotations already covering safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), the description adds real value: it discloses the return value ('number of nights'), reversibility ('removed with remove_place'), the no-confirmation behavior, and the required Cotlet API key scope. The phrase 'reaches no one outside the trip' sits in mild tension with openWorldHint=true but describes notification scope rather than data access, so it is not a hard contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. However the second sentence ('Adds a lodging entry with the dates you pass and returns the number of nights') largely repeats the first sentence's content, adding some redundancy.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential extras: return value, reversibility, auth requirement, and execution behavior. It is close to complete; only explicit differentiation from wanderlog_add_place is missing.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only restates the check-in/check-out and optional confirmation fields with no added format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add lodging') plus the distinguishing fields (check-in/check-out dates, confirmation number), which clearly separates it from siblings like wanderlog_add_note or wanderlog_add_expense. It doesn't explicitly contrast with wanderlog_add_place, which may also cover hotels, so it falls short of 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 conveys lifecycle context (removed with remove_place) and that it 'runs without asking,' but never states when to pick this over the general wanderlog_add_place or what trip/access preconditions gate usage beyond the API key note. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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