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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds useful context about returned content (metadata, images, IDs for rate searches) and search modes, but says nothing about pagination limits beyond the schema, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

It is well-structured and front-loaded with a clear Overview, but highly redundant: 'When to Use', 'What You Get', and 'Quick Start' repeatedly restate the same three or four ideas. The same information could be delivered in roughly half the text without loss.

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?

For a 23-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the Quick Start's advice to 'Provide search criteria (city, coordinates+radius, placeId, or hotelIds)' is genuinely helpful for avoiding an unbounded query. But it omits other valid entry points (aiSearch, hotelName, chainIds) and gives no default-behavior or result-size guidance, leaving the definition only minimally 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 all 23 parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The 'Search Options' section maps loosely to the geo/ID parameters but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it omits chainIds, facilityIds, starRating modes).

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search and retrieve hotel listings') and enumerates what comes back (names, addresses, ratings, amenities, images, IDs). However, it never distinguishes itself from the many near-identical siblings (get_data_hotel_search, get_data_hotels_semantic_search, get_data_hotel), even though the aiSearch parameter here overlaps semantically with the dedicated semantic-search sibling.

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?

A 'When to Use' section exists, but its bullets ('Hotel listings – Display hotel search results', 'Hotel discovery – Browse hotels in specific areas') restate the overview rather than give real selection criteria. No guidance is offered on when to pick this over get_data_hotel_search or get_data_hotels_semantic_search, which is the key routing decision given the sibling set.

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