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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious context beyond that: the data is 'credential-free public data from Agoda's own hotel content source,' telling the agent no authentication is required. No rate-limit or error behavior is disclosed, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the long enumeration of returned fields duplicates what the output schema already declares, which is the least valuable sentence in the text for this tool. It is readable but the field list does not fully earn its length.

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 no elaboration, and annotations cover safety; usage is routed and the id source is explained. The definition is essentially complete, with only minor gaps such as invalid-id/error behavior.

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% and the description's property_id text mirrors the schema's, adding no new syntax or constraints. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns full hotel detail from Agoda') and enumerates the detail categories returned. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling by naming agoda_hotels_search for city search, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear context: it explains where the property_id comes from (a prior Search call or an Agoda hotel URL) and names agoda_hotels_search as the alternative for city-based discovery. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you already have a property_id and need content' framing, but the routing is clear.

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