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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully lists the expected output contents (amenities, reviews breakdown, images, eco-certification, nearby places), but it does not disclose any limitations, error behavior, or how missing data is handled. This leaves some ambiguity for a read tool with five optional parameters.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and efficiently enumerates the key data categories. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With five optional parameters and no output schema, the description lists the primary return types but does not clarify the role of date parameters or how the query string maps to a specific hotel. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description would benefit from explaining the relationship between inputs and the returned details, as well as when to choose this tool over siblings.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (query, country, check_in, currency, check_out), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already explains the parameters.

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 identifies the tool as providing deep details for a specific hotel, listing specific content types like amenities, reviews breakdown, images, and eco-certification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as hotel_search or hotel_prices_calendar, but it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'get'), so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 that this tool is for retrieving comprehensive information about a specific hotel, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like hotel_search or price_compare. There is no mention of exclusions or condition-based selection, so usage guidance is only implied.

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