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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a field preview of what comes back, which is largely duplicated by the existing output schema, and says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown id or why idempotentHint is false for a lookup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and key identifier up front and no filler. The trailing enumeration of return fields is slightly redundant against the output schema but is compact and cheap.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it fetches, how to obtain the id, and what comes back. Minor gaps are the unmentioned language parameter and the lack of any sibling disambiguation.

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 `id` and `language` are already documented in the schema, including their provenance and the default. The description adds no syntax, format, or language-behavior detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Details of one hotel by its id") and enumerates the fields returned, and it links the id to the sibling search_hotels. It does not differentiate this from find_hotel or browse_hotels, which also appear to handle single hotels, so an agent still has to guess among those.

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 parenthetical "(from search_hotels)" implies the intended flow: search first, then fetch details by id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no exclusion against find_hotel or browse_hotels, so the routing signal is only implied.

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