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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the scope (single hotel), the identifier source (slug from specific tools), and allowed language values. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation. The added context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single sentence plus a language specification. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential details. There is no redundancy or filler, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 tool is simple (two params, no output schema), and the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter source, and language options. It clearly indicates the return is a single hotel's details. While it lacks details on error behavior or response structure, these are less critical for a basic get operation, and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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. It provides meaningful guidance for both parameters: 'slug' is explained as coming from list_hotels or search_hotels, and 'language' is given its allowed values ('en', 'pt', 'es'). This adds value beyond the raw schema and helps the agent construct valid arguments.

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 action ('Detalhe de UM hotel' – details of one hotel) and the resource (hotel from the catalog). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like list_hotels and search_hotels by emphasizing 'UM hotel' (one hotel) and using the slug as a unique identifier. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from listing/searching tools.

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 gives explicit context on when to use the tool: when you have a slug returned by list_hotels or search_hotels. This informs the agent of the prerequisite and the typical workflow. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or alternatives, but the reference to sibling tools that generate the slug effectively guides proper usage.

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