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 that room names come in the search language, that `language` controls only error messages, and it adds a substantial prompt-injection warning about third-party hotel/supplier content (remarks, notes, links). It does not address pagination or result size 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and workflow, then a clearly separated safety block. Every sentence earns its place; only slightly verbose in the injection warning.

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 read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies prerequisites, downstream usage, notable return fields, language behavior, and a safety caveat. Response shape and pagination are the only 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains where search_id and hotel_slug come from (search_hotels), what `language` accepts ('en', 'pt', 'es') and what it affects (error messages). `token` is undocumented but self-evident as auth.

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: lists ALL apartments/room types of ONE hotel within an already-performed search. It also names the key output field (opcao_id) and positions itself against sibling tools (search_hotels upstream, get_quote/create_payment downstream).

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?

Explicitly says to use the search_id and hotel_slug returned by search_hotels, and to feed the resulting opcao_id into get_quote and create_payment, giving clear workflow placement. It lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing is unambiguous.

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