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 filtering behavior (returns homes/apartments rather than hotels), which is genuine context, but it doesn't disclose pagination mechanics or result-count quirks beyond what the schema params already explain.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the routing guidance follows immediately. No wasted words.

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, and the tool's purpose plus alternatives are well covered. Minor gap: it doesn't flag that city or city_id is required (the schema lists zero required params), though the individual param descriptions address this.

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 100%, so the schema already documents city, city_id, page, and limit in detail, including the city_id precedence rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search Agoda Homes and Apartments listings) with scope (for a city), and explicitly distinguishes the output from hotel results. It names two sibling alternatives, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 names when to use alternatives: 'Use agoda_hotels_search for hotels or agoda_hotel_detail for one known hotel.' The condition selecting each sibling is stated, leaving nothing to inference for the lodging use case.

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