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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's remaining burden is low. It adds real value by disclosing that prices are provisional and that preferred-partner properties are flagged, plus that 'all_programmes' drives one query per consortia programme. It does not mention latency or result caps, which would have pushed it to 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the caveat and the handoff to the rates sibling. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the returned fields and flags the provisional-price caveat, which is the key completeness requirement for this tool. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and the meaning of less-obvious parameters like all_programmes, but nothing essential for a correct call 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 description coverage is 71%, just below the high-coverage bar, with adults, radius_miles and both dates effectively self-explanatory from the schema. The description mentions none of the parameters directly, so it adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Hotels near a place for given dates') and enumerates exactly what comes back: names, Sabre hotel codes, star rating, distance, and a provisional lowest rate, plus the preferred-partner flag. It explicitly names the sibling sabre_hotel_rates_coded that supplies real rates, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

It routes the agent to sabre_hotel_rates_coded for bookable rates, terms and benefits, which implies the search-then-rate workflow. It stops short of an explicit 'use this first to discover properties' instruction or any when-not condition, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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