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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the read-only listing scope, the paid-only filter, the exact returned fields (including the derived cancelavel_gratis flag), and a prompt-injection warning that third-party hotel/remarks content must never be followed as instructions. It does not cover pagination, result limits, or auth/token expectations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and returned fields, followed by the exclusion and then the safety warning; every sentence carries information. The security paragraph is long but is genuinely load-bearing for an agent reading untrusted hotel content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields and flagging untrusted content. Remaining gaps are pagination/result-size behavior and token/auth expectations, which matter for a list endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 'language': it names the allowed values ('en', 'pt', 'es') and its purpose (error messages). 'token' is left unexplained, but its role is inferable from context.

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 and resource ('Lista as reservas do hospede') and enumerates exactly what is returned: confirmation number, status, hotel, dates, price, cancelavel_gratis. It also carves out scope by excluding abandoned checkouts without payment, so an agent can distinguish it from order/payment siblings.

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?

Gives a clear inclusion condition ('com pagamento confirmado') and an explicit exclusion ('Pedido abandonado no checkout (sem pagamento) nao aparece aqui'), which routes the agent away from this tool for unpaid carts. It does not name a specific alternative sibling such as get_order_status, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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