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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: the platform availability constraint, the underlying GET endpoint shape, and the fact that location and rooms are only returned when explicitly requested — real behavioral information a caller would otherwise lack. It stops short of noting auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences plus an endpoint reference — the returned fields are front-loaded and the platform caveat follows immediately. Minimal waste; the trailing endpoint string is the only element that is more implementer-facing than agent-facing.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and correctly signals that location/rooms are opt-in. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs; only the relationship to evenium_get_guest_accommodations remains unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (event_id, include) are already fully documented with enums and formats. The description's 'if asked, full location and rooms' loosely maps to the include parameter but largely restates the schema's own enum descriptions, so the baseline 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 description states a specific resource (hotels of an event) and enumerates the fields returned — name, group, stars, contact details, and optionally location and rooms — which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_guests or list_contacts. The verb is only implied by the name/title rather than written into the description, keeping it just 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?

It gives one explicit exclusion — 'Not available on the evenium.net platform' — which is genuinely useful when-to-use context. However, it offers no routing versus evenium_get_guest_accommodations, the closest sibling (guest-level hotel/room data), so the agent must infer that this tool lists event-level hotels while the sibling reports per-guest stays.

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