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 check_out-after-check_in constraint and required dates, but no other behavioral context such as rate limits or what stays unresolved when dates change. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then the prerequisite, then optional context. Every sentence earns its place, though the date-format/ordering restatement of the schema is slightly redundant.

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 explained. The description covers purpose, the search-to-detail prerequisite, required dates and optional context, leaving only minor behavioral gaps that the annotations and output schema largely absorb.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and ordering constraint duplicate the schema text. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries parameter meaning and the description adds little beyond it.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('Expedia property details'), then enumerates the returned fields (name, star rating, address and coordinates, top amenities). It distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by noting the ID comes from expedia_properties_search, so an agent can tell search from detail without opening either 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 routes the agent: 'Get the ID from expedia_properties_search', establishing the prerequisite and the correct flow from search to detail. It gives clear context for when this tool applies but does not state any exclusions or alternatives beyond that single sibling.

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