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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return content, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or whether check_in/check_out affect the detail response. Adequate but thin given the lower bar set by annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the parenthetical efficiently lists the returned fields. It is compact and well-structured, though it spends its budget only on the payload rather than the input contract.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description is materially incomplete: five parameters are undocumented and no usage context ties them together. This falls short of what the tool's complexity demands.

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% and there are 6 parameters, yet the description only accounts for property_id ('for a known property id'). The roles of adults, locale, check_in, check_out, and currency are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent unable to judge why they exist.

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 (Returns) and resource (hotel's detail summary) and enumerates the payload (name, star rating, address/coordinates, top amenities), plus the input ('known property id'). It reads clearly as a detail-lookup distinct from the expedia_properties_search/filters/reviews siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'for a known property id' implies the id must already be in hand (e.g. from a prior search), which is a mild usage hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling search or reviews tools.

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