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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add deeper semantics — and it does: facts carry a source URL and checked date, the Journeyed Score is accompanied by what backs it, and critically the "unknown" list means not-on-record, not that the hotel lacks the amenity. That distinction materially changes how an agent reports results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the fact inventory, the usage rule and the exclusions. The long parenthetical fact list is dense but each item maps to a real query an agent might field; only minor tightening is possible.

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 structure need not be re-explained, and the description instead covers the things structured fields cannot: what domains of fact are in scope, what is deliberately absent, and how to interpret the unknown bucket. Nothing needed to call this tool 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents accepted forms (current/former name or journeyed.org URL) and gives examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-documented single parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource — the fact sheet Journeyed holds for one Los Angeles hotel — and enumerates the exact fact categories covered (parking price, fees, pet rules, check-in/out, scores, distances). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like search_hotels, best_hotels and hotels_near, which operate on sets rather than one named hotel.

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?

"Use it for any question about a named hotel" gives a clear positive trigger, and "It holds no reviews, room prices or availability" provides negative scope that steers the agent elsewhere. It does not name the specific sibling to use instead (e.g. get_report or search_hotels) for those excluded cases, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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