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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful context by stating what the result contains and explicitly ruling out availability checks and reservation creation. The fixed, tiny result set is hinted at by 'the two', though no pagination/rate-limit notes are needed here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the constraint. No filler or restatement of the title beyond what's needed.

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 parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what the returned items are (hotels plus direct-booking URLs). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results, though it doesn't say the list is fixed at two entries beyond the phrase 'the two'.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly does not invent arguments.

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 (list the two Casona boutique hotels in Cartagena) plus what each record carries (official direct-booking engine URLs). The scope is narrow and unambiguous, and the mention of booking URLs clearly separates it from the sibling that searches room quotes.

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 negative clauses 'No availability is checked and no reservation is made' implicitly route the agent to search_casona_room_quotes for availability/pricing, and signal this is the discovery step. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the alternative is inferable rather than stated.

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