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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details—that the tool searches both stay-level (tbStayFacilities) and room-level (tbRoomFacilities) references and supports two match modes—which goes beyond annotation information.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose, match behavior, optional filter). There is no redundancy or 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's operation: it identifies what is searched, the two scanning levels, the matchType behavior, and the optional WiFi speed threshold. For a read-only search tool with these parameters, this is 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description enriches the schema by explaining the dual-level search scope (referencing tbStayFacilities and tbRoomFacilities) and clarifying the matchType semantics, adding context not present in the parameter descriptions.

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 opening sentence 'Find all stays that have specific amenities' uses a specific verb and resource, and the subsequent detail about searching both stay-level and room-level amenities clearly defines the tool's scope, distinguishing it from amenity-specific siblings like getStaysByWiFiSpeed.

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 provides explicit instructions on using matchType 'any' vs 'all' and the optional minWifiSpeed filter, giving clear context for when to apply these options. However, it does not mention alternative tools for amenity-specific searches or exclusions, so it falls short of full 5.

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