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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond annotations: it returns hotels with options, each option has a rate_key valid for 30 minutes, and each hotel has a booking_url. It does not describe pagination, result limits or empty-result behavior, but the rate_key expiry is a valuable behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides compact parameter and return guidance. Every sentence adds value: no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the formatting is efficient despite spanning multiple lines. It is appropriately sized for a nine-parameter search tool.

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 nine parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema and only basic annotations, the description provides substantial context: it explains most parameter formats and describes the return structure via rate_key and booking_url. The main gaps are the undocumented max_total_price parameter, the unmentioned rooms parameter/default, and no note on pagination or result caps. These gaps are minor but real for a search tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains destination formats (city, area, region, hotel name, ISO country code), date format YYYY-MM-DD, that adults and children_ages are per room, currency semantics, and board values. However, it completely omits max_total_price and never explicitly mentions the rooms parameter or its default, leaving two of nine parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search live availability and prices of directly-contracted hotels, apartments and villas.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like book_hotel, check_rate, get_hotel and get_booking by framing it as the discovery/search step. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 the workflow: search returns rate_key values used by check_rate and book_hotel, and booking_url for direct booking. It gives clear context for when to call it, but it does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., when to use get_hotel instead for static details). The guidance is strong but lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions.

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