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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the breadth of returned content and the operational quirk that hotel_code may be omitted on a hotel's own connector, which is real behavioral guidance.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is long but each item tells the agent what payload to expect. The parenthetical caveat is placed in the least disruptive spot at the end.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description plus annotations cover what the agent needs. Return-shape exposition is partly redundant given the output schema, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the hotel_code format and the 'leave empty on a hotel's own connector' rule. The description restates that rule rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and enumerates exactly what is retrieved (description, amenities, photos, location, rooms, check-in times, children policy, payment terms), so an agent can distinguish this from search_hotels or check_rate at a glance. It stops just short of naming the sibling that produces the hotel_code it consumes.

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: the parenthetical and the schema note tie it to a hotel_code from search_hotels, and the 'hotel's own connector' clause hints at a second calling context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus check_rate or why to pick this over another lookup.

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