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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context that hotel_code is not required when calling a hotel's own connector, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape/pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a single informative enumeration with no filler. The field list is long but earns its place by previewing the response payload. One sentence, no redundancy.

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 read-only, one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. The only real gap is routing guidance versus search_hotels, which the usage line leaves implicit.

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 0% for the single optional hotel_code parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain that hotel_code is unnecessary on a hotel's own connector, which justifies the empty default and clarifies when the parameter matters — meaningful beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 names a specific verb+resource (full details of a hotel) and enumerates the exact payload: description, amenities, photos, location, rooms, check-in times, children policy and payment terms. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_hotels (which lists) and book_hotel (which mutates).

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the detail-fetch step after a search, but no alternative (e.g. search_hotels) is named and no when-not condition is stated. The parenthetical about hotel_code not being needed on a hotel's own connector hints at a specific calling context but is not framed as guidance.

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