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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the 70,000 m radius ceiling, the tomorrow-plus-three-nights date default, and that results carry live prices and distance. It does not mention pagination or how the radius interacts with result ordering, so it is not fully complete.

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 front-loaded sentences, each carrying new information: primary anchor, disambiguation, date defaults, and return shape. It is dense without being padded, though the inline examples consume some space relative to the small amount of parameter detail conveyed.

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 34-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers well under a quarter of the surface. An agent calling it would still be guessing at the meaning and valid values of most filters, and the return payload is only characterized as 'hotels with live prices and distance'.

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 0% across 34 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic burden but documents only place, lat/lng, country_code, radius and the date defaults. Filters that materially change results (sort, limit, stars, board, adults/children, currency, max/min price, property_type, amenities, free_cancellation, etc.) are left entirely unexplained.

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 verb and resource (search hotels) plus the anchoring mode (named place or lat/lng coordinate with radius). It is distinguishable from search_hotels and get_nearby_hotels only implicitly through the geo-anchoring phrasing, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives partial routing guidance (place name vs coordinates, country_code to disambiguate, radius cap) and default behavior for dates. It never states when to prefer this over search_hotels or get_nearby_hotels, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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