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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds a useful behavioral detail—that it calculates actual travel time via Google Maps to filter results—which goes beyond simple read operations. Still, it doesn't discuss potential external API dependencies or result format, so the added transparency is moderate.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and method. It contains no filler words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality and the unique travel-time filtering logic. However, it does not describe the return value or result structure, which could leave agents uncertain about the response format. The rich schema and annotation mitigate some gaps, but the missing output details prevent a higher score.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters, including examples and constraints, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description mentions the key parameter groups (destination, schedule, budget, travel time) in prose, which reinforces but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches for business hotels on Rakuten Travel using destination, schedule, budget, and travel time constraints. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('business hotels'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_prices and recommend_for_consumer.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for hotels based on destination, dates, budget, and travel time. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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