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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: confidence-threshold name resolution, candidate results on ambiguity, and private member prices masked until sign-in. It also notes multi-week work-stay coverage. Missing are failure modes (no availability, invalid propertyId) and rate/limit behavior.

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?

Four sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact — purpose and scope, input modes, ambiguity handling, price masking. No restatement of the title and no filler.

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 at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the remaining inputs and at least the shape of an offer (rooms, rates, taxes, cancellation terms). It covers the core call path and the sign-in caveat but leaves enough undefined that an agent must guess at currency/room-count semantics and return structure.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partly discharges it: it explains the propertyId vs hotelName+destination split and confirms checkin/checkout dates and guest count are required. currency, hotelRooms, and childrenAges go entirely unmentioned, and no date format or currency constraints are restated.

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 ("Return live room offers for a hotel or motel") plus the scoping dimensions (explicit dates and guests). It is readily separable from get_hotel_details (property attributes) and search_stays (property discovery), so an agent can route 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?

The description gives the decision rule between the two input modes: a propertyId from search results, or a hotelName with optional destination. It also flags the ambiguous-name outcome (candidates returned via a confidence threshold), which shapes follow-up behavior. It does not say when to prefer get_hotel_details or search_stays instead, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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