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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that: "A unique, confident match is required," optional fee amounts "may be absent in the catalog," and "do not send null." It stops short of describing what a failed/ambiguous match returns, which is the remaining gap.

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-loaded and purposeful in its first half, but the latter half drifts into lengthy instructions about get_room_rates pagination and raw_offer_page counts that belong to the sibling tool and dilute the call to action. Several sentences repeat the same idea (one call, don't re-query, expand cards locally).

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and only 75% schema coverage, the description does the necessary work by enumerating the returned fact set and the match requirement. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the locale/region/country parameters and error behavior remain unexplained.

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 75%, and the description compensates by stating a cross-field constraint the schema cannot express: "Supply exactly one hotel_id or hotel_name," plus when destination is needed and to "Copy its hotel_id exactly." It does not explain the region/country/user_locale versus locale distinction, leaving part of the low-documented surface unaddressed.

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 ("Get undated facts for one identified or named hotel") and enumerates the returned facts, immediately separating it from get_room_rates ("No stay dates, availability, live prices or room-level offers are included"). An agent can distinguish it from both siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing rules: use get_hotel for undated facts, call get_room_rates for room options/prices, "Do not repeat a destination search before either hotel-specific tool," and resolve follow-ups against the most recent ordered search list. It even specifies the fallback path (hotel_id, else hotel_name + destination) and when to ask the user.

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