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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: it resolves to the 'best-matching' catalog city, returns other_city_matches on ambiguity, and requires passing city_id to switch searches. It also explains the output's key linkage to track_hotel_price. This gives the agent accurate expectations beyond the schema.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then packs the disambiguation rule and downstream integration into a single dense but readable second sentence.

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?

For a read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: input forms, language support, matching behavior, ambiguity resolution, and the significance of the returned agoda_hotel_id. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: city_id comes from a previous other_city_matches result and overrides city, and the hotel id returned is what track_hotel_price requires. This relationship guidance is not fully evident from the parameter descriptions alone.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Search HotelRefund's hotel catalog'), a clear resource, and the result behavior: resolving a city/region/airport name into a catalog city and listing hotels. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming the agoda_hotel_id that track_hotel_price requires, making its role in the workflow unmistakable.

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?

The description gives concrete guidance on the disambiguation flow: when several cities match, use one of their city_id values instead of city. It also implies this tool is the prerequisite lookup before track_hotel_price. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer list_hotel_deals or get_price_history, but the resource and workflow relationship are clear enough.

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