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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the data source (motel.loans FDD database, 48 brands) and provenance fields (FDD year and page) that tell the agent results are citable and static, not live pricing.

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, front-loaded with what the table contains and immediately followed by the filter/sort affordances. The column inventory is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back in the absence of an output schema.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned columns and their provenance. All five parameters are optional and schema-documented, and the annotations cover safety; the only real gap is the unstated boundary with get_franchise_costs.

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 every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only light business framing ('lowest Item 7 cost' for item7_low, filter-by-parent/brand wording) and does not explain the fee definitions or what the Item 7 range means, so it stays at baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a ranked comparison table of hotel brands with named cost columns, drawn from a named FDD database of 48 brands. An agent can tell it produces a multi-brand ranked table, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_franchise_costs (single-brand lookup).

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 operational guidance for filtering (by parent company or specific brands) and sorting, but never states when to reach for this tool rather than get_franchise_costs. Usage is implied by the 'ranked table' framing rather than asserted against alternatives.

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