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 useful detail that results carry date-bound prices, but says nothing about pagination, locale/currency behavior, or result volume, which matters for a search over an open-world catalog.

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 filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with ten undocumented parameters.

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 need not be described, but the input side is a significant gap: ten parameters at 0% coverage with no required fields and no guidance on which combinations are meaningful. The description does not close that gap.

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% across 10 parameters, so the schema documents none of them. The description only loosely gestures at two ('destination' -> query/region_id, 'date-bound' -> check_in/check_out) and leaves page, rooms, adults, locale, currency, and page_size entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Hotels.com properties'), and a scope qualifier ('with date-bound prices for a destination'). This distinguishes it from detail-oriented siblings like hotels_property and hotels_rates, 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as hotels_autocomplete (for resolving a destination) or hotels_property (for a specific hotel). Usage context is only weakly implied by 'Search'.

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