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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description still adds substantial behavioral detail: it enumerates what is returned (name, address, stars, rating, review count), states explicitly that no prices are returned, and discloses the cross-city search fallback plus the 'confirm the city with the user' rule. This is context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

The core framing and the not-a-search-engine caveat are front-loaded, and the flow line at the end anchors the tool in the workflow. It is dense and slightly run-on in the middle, but essentially every sentence carries operational information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so precisely, including the other_city_matches field an agent must act on. For a four-parameter read-only lookup, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by explaining resolution behavior: city is resolved to the best catalog match, a hotel name without city searches every city, and city_id (from other_city_matches) overrides city. It does not explain the limit parameter, which keeps it below a 5.

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 outcome ('Resolve a hotel to the agoda_hotel_id') and explicitly frames it as a lookup step rather than a search engine. It names the sibling it feeds (track_hotel_price) and the sibling to use instead for prices (list_hotel_deals), so an agent can distinguish it from every nearby tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('lookup step, not a hotel search engine'), when-not-to-use ('for prices, track the hotel or use list_hotel_deals'), a typical call sequence, and recovery instructions when results are empty or ambiguous ('If it finds nothing, ask for the city'). The alternative for multiple city matches (city_id) is spelled out.

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