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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that matching is name-based only, which explains why keyword-style needs (parking, pets) fail here. Return contents are mentioned but an output schema exists, so that portion adds less.

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?

Four tight sentences, zero filler, with purpose and scope front-loaded before usage and the sibling hand-off. Every sentence carries either a routing rule or a constraint.

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?

Output schema covers return shape and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to supply scope, routing, and matching semantics — all present. Nothing required 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with examples and limits. The description restates the query fields and the optional proximity filter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (find) plus resource (hotels) plus scope (Los Angeles area) and the matching fields (name, former name, brand, city). It also signals its role relative to get_hotel and hotels_near, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening another 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('to get the exact hotel before get_hotel', 'to list a brand's hotels near a place') and when not to ('for a need such as parking or pets use hotels_near'). This is a complete routing instruction with a named alternative and the condition that selects it.

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