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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds traits those annotations cannot express: results are limited to *published* records, destination matching is exact rather than fuzzy, and availability/price data is deliberately out of scope. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope constraint front-loaded and the negative scope stated second. No filler, though the negative clause could have been tied to a concrete alternative sibling.

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 read-only lookup tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers search scope well but says nothing about what a result contains (fields, ranking, pagination) and omits the limit parameter. Adequate, but an agent still has gaps before calling it.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: destination is an exact name/slug, query is free text, category is a filter — but the 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 20) is never addressed, and matching semantics (exact vs. fuzzy) are only stated for destination.

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 and resource ('Find published hotel records') and constrains the lookup to 'exact destination name/slug'. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like search, compare_hotels, or get_booking_links, so differentiation is only implied.

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 clause 'No live availability or price filters' signals the tool's scope boundary and implicitly routes availability/pricing needs elsewhere, but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisites are given. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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