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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, but the description adds important behavior: cost of $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana, or Arc, and failed calls are not charged. It also discloses result cardinality and fields returned.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and keeps the description to a few dense sentences with no filler. The long field/amenity list is useful but somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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, open-world hotel lookup with a fully covered input schema and an output schema, the description supplies cost, result shape, city identifier expectations, and the no-dates condition. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so city slug format and limit range/default are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the city slug requirement and no-dates aspect but adds little parameter 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?

States a specific resource and source: top hotels in a city from Agoda's city guide page, with no dates needed. The Agoda city-guide framing distinguishes it from date-based or other-provider hotel tools.

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?

Provides clear context that it is for city-level top hotels and does not require dates, which helps an agent choose it for browsing. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as booking_com_hotels or google_hotels_price, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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