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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful context — listings expose real-time availability and exact prices, there is no OTA commission, and coverage is currently hotels with salons/restaurants 'soon' — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination for what could be a large directory.

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 that front-load what the tool lists before describing usage. The parenthetical coverage caveat is mildly extraneous but carries real information about catalog scope.

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 no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does enumerate the key fields. For a zero-param read tool this is nearly complete; only auth and result-volume behavior are unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add value by explaining the semantic role of the slug field as the key consumed by network_search and network_book, beyond what the empty schema conveys.

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 ('List every establishment in the Adaga direct-booking network') and enumerates the identity fields returned (brand, type, city, slug). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools network_search and network_book, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use the slug for network_search and network_book,' establishing this as the discovery entry point that feeds the other two tools. It does not spell out when this tool is unnecessary or any prerequisites, but the chaining context is clear.

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