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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the default result count of 5 (overridable via limit), the returned fields including a relevance score, and the caution to validate name/city before using an id.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, then the caution and the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the relevance score, and explains both parameters. It omits the 20-result ceiling that lives only in the schema and does not differentiate the other semantic-search sibling, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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 100%, so query and limit are already documented with the default and the example. The description restates the default of 5 and clarifies the query is semantic, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Find hotels by name or place') plus the mechanism (semantic text search) and routing to the more precise alternative. It distinguishes itself from get_data_hotels, though it never addresses the very similar sibling get_data_hotels_semantic_search, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives clear guidance for when to prefer the alternative: an exact hotel name should go to get_data_hotels with hotelName and cityName/countryCode. It also advises verifying name and city before reusing an id. It stops short of covering the other near-identical search siblings, so it is clear context but not exhaustive routing.

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