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 genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: promotional banners and sponsored ad slots are filtered out, guaranteeing every returned property has an id and name. That is a useful, non-obvious disclosure about result content.

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, each earning its place: purpose first, behavioral guarantee second, routing to the sibling third. No filler or redundancy.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, scoping inputs, result normalization, and the natural next-step tool. Complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor room for pagination or destination-resolution notes.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the destination and date-range inputs at a high level, adding little beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Returns normalized Expedia Stays (hotel) search results') plus the input scope (free-text destination and date range), and explicitly names the sibling expedia_properties_detail as the alternative. An agent can distinguish this search tool from the detail tool 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?

Names the alternative expedia_properties_detail and the condition that selects it (retrieving property detail). Usage is clearly implied by 'search results for a free-text destination and date range', but there is no explicit when-not guidance relative to sibling search-related tools like expedia_properties_filters or expedia_locations_search.

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