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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only hotels with score >=5.0 are returned, that min_score does not override the floor, and that data is 'live'. This provides important behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states main purpose and source, second lists optional filters. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not specify what fields are returned for each hotel (e.g., name, location, score). While sufficient for a search tool, it lacks details about the result 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the min_score parameter's interaction with the public floor ('the public floor is 5.0 regardless of this value'). This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's 'Minimum cosy score'.

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 clearly states the tool finds 'live, cosy-scored hotels' from a specific source, with a defined score range (0-10) and a floor of 5.0. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'get_hotel_feeling' by focusing on listing hotels rather than retrieving a single hotel's feeling.

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 implies usage for searching hotels with optional filters but does not explicitly compare to sibling tool 'get_hotel_feeling' or specify when to use each. It mentions the public floor but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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