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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: USD denomination for fixed amounts, percentage semantics (14.62 = 14.62%), the offline-learned pipeline, and that hotels without learned data return 404. It also documents enterprise-only response fields and the invariant that payAtProperty is always the opposite of included.

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?

Header-delimited sections (Overview, When to Use, Notes) front-load the purpose and keep each block purposeful. It is somewhat long for a single-parameter tool, but no sentence is clearly 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it explains the per-tax entry structure, inclusion/percentage/fixed semantics, scaling rules, enterprise fields, and the 404 case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents hotelId ('lp' format or numeric). The description adds no further syntax or format detail for the identifier, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the tax schema of a hotel') and adds the key scoping detail that the data is normalized static data independent of supply provider. An agent can distinguish this from sibling rate/booking tools like post_hotels_rates or get_data_hotel without opening the 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 'When to Use' section gives three concrete scenarios (price transparency, amount-due-at-property estimates, tax auditing), which is clear context for selection. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it (e.g. versus live rate tools), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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