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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or what happens if both/neither parameters are supplied. It lists feature categories but omits response format and side-effect behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the core purpose ('Servizi e caratteristiche') and follows with a compact illustrative list. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description enumerates return content (pool, spa, wifi, etc.), partially compensating for the missing output schema. However, it does not describe the response structure or behavior for empty/conflicting parameters, leaving gaps for a two-optional-param tool with no annotations.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage (nome partial match, hotel_id UUID alternative), so the description does not need to reiterate them. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond the schema.

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 provides 'Servizi e caratteristiche di un hotel del catalogo' with concrete examples, which distinguishes it from siblings like cerca_hotel and dettaglio_offerta. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'restituisce' or 'recupera'), relying on the noun phrase to imply retrieval.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only defines the content ('piscina, spa, wifi...'), leaving the agent to infer applicability; the only boundary is the phrase 'del catalogo'.

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