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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real value: a directory with no prices or room availability, and a note that the hotel's own phone is the fallback channel. That tells the agent how to set expectations on results. It does not mention the hard result cap beyond what the schema's limit maximum enforces, so it stops short of a 5.

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, no filler. Scope and source are front-loaded, the limitation follows, and exclusions come last — a clean information hierarchy with every clause earning its place.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers scope, exclusions, and the price/availability caveat. The one gap is the relationship to get_hotel_rooms and search_properties, which the description leaves ambiguous.

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 area, kind, name, limit, and min_stars all documented, including the Amharic examples and the enum's synonym mapping. The description adds essentially nothing parameter-level beyond repeating 'sub-city' as a returned field, 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?

The first sentence names the resource (hotels, guest houses, pensions, hostels, furnished apartments), the geography (Addis Ababa), the source (BinaSmart's directory, 1,000+ places) and the exact fields returned. It explicitly rules out adjacent categories by naming the sibling tools (search_health, search_places), so an agent can separate it from its neighbors without opening a schema.

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 clear when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives (search_health for clinics, search_places for restaurants and shops), which is more than most definitions offer. However, it omits any routing to get_hotel_rooms and instead says availability comes from the hotel's phone — the existence of a dedicated rooms sibling makes that advice misleading at the edges, and the overlap with search_properties for furnished apartments is unaddressed.

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