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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions one trait: results are 'sorted by lowest price.' However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether a query is required (all parameters are optional), default filtering behavior, result limits, or what the response contains. The lack of detail for a tool with seven optional parameters is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence: 'Find the cheapest hotels, sorted by lowest price.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words. It earns every word and is appropriately sized for a simple 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 the tool has seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description is very thin. It does not explain how the tool behaves with no parameters, what the return format is, or how it relates to sibling tools like price_compare or hotel_prices_calendar. The complexity of the tool demands more contextual information than this single sentence provides.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented with individual descriptions (e.g., 'City or area', 'Check-in YYYY-MM-DD'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting. No parameter is left undocumented or ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find the cheapest hotels, sorted by lowest price.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('hotels') with a differentiating qualifier ('cheapest'), and the sorting behavior distinguishes it from generic search or price comparison tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its scope, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hotel_search or price_compare. The description merely states what it does, implying usage for cheap hotel queries but providing no explicit context, preconditions, or exclusions. This is a clear gap with multiple overlapping sibling tools available.

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