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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (names, ratings, prices, amenities, deals) and sorting capability, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as result limits, pagination, error handling, or whether a query is required despite being optional in the schema. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. It conveys purpose, return contents, and sorting without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is moderately complete. It states the core use case and return fields, but doesn't address potential pitfalls like missing query behavior, date dependencies, or result limits. It's adequate for a search tool but leaves gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning 'Sortable by price, rating, or reviews' which mirrors the sort_by parameter descriptions. It doesn't provide additional meaning for parameters like query or check_in beyond what the schema already explains.

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 purpose: 'Search hotels in a city or area' with a specific verb and resource. It also indicates return contents (names, ratings, prices, amenities, deals) and sorting behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cheapest_hotels or hotel_prices_calendar, so it's not 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?

The description implies usage for general hotel searches, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools like cheapest_hotels or hotel_details. This falls short of clear contextual guidance.

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