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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description earns credit for enumerating what the response contains (description, amenities, photos, address, check-in/check-out times), which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs; it stops short of mentioning error behavior for an unknown hotel_id.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the single-hotel scope is front-loaded in the phrase itself. The fragment style is efficient, though slightly clipped as prose.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full annotation coverage, the definition supplies both scope and return contents, which is close to sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any guidance on when this should be called instead of the sibling tools.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains that hotel_id comes from search results. The description adds nothing further about the identifier, so the baseline of 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?

The phrase 'for one hotel' pins down the resource and its cardinality, and the listed fields (description, amenities, photos, address, check-in/check-out times) make clear this is a detail lookup rather than a list. It is a noun phrase with no verb, but an agent can still distinguish it from the search/availability siblings by the single-hotel scope.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names the alternatives (search_hotels, check_availability). Any routing logic must be inferred from the name and the 'for one hotel' scope alone.

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