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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the 'static' nature and lists data categories, which is useful but does not discuss data freshness, auth, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with 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?

For a simple read-only GET tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and informative sibling names, the description is complete. It clearly states the returned content (static details, facilities, rooms, policies, images) and implies a read-only behavior.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (hotel_id, language default, user_key optional). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' with resource 'hotel detail', enumerating content (facilities, rooms, policies, images). The word 'static' hints at differentiation from dynamic sibling tools like check_room_availability, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

'Static' implies use when unchanging hotel information is needed, but the description doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of search_hotels, query_room_rates, or booking tools. Usage context is only implied through the sibling tool list.

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