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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses data freshness (live nightly prices), what may be missing (ratings and photos 'where available'), and the sourcing model (local property managers booked direct, no booking-site fee, plus hotel and vacation-rental searches).

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?

Everything is packed into one front-loaded sentence: the primary use case and location formats come first, with enrichment details trailing. It is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing what comes back (nightly prices, ratings, photos) and the inventory mix. Budget and party filtering are acknowledged, though date/occupancy constraints and result limits are left entirely to the schema.

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 89%, so the schema already documents near, rooms, adults, checkin/checkout, radiusMiles, childrenAges and maxPricePerNight. The description reinforces that budget filtering exists ('filtered by budget') but adds no syntax, defaults, or ranges beyond the schema, 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?

The description opens with a specific resource and scope: 'Places to stay near a ski or beach resort (or any lat,lon) for given dates and party,' which cleanly distinguishes a lodging search from siblings like search_ski_resorts and search_beach_resorts. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls just below the top tier.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'near a ski or beach resort... for given dates and party,' letting an agent infer when the tool applies. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_beach_resorts or search_ski_resorts, or any prerequisites/exclusions.

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