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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the data source (Agoda live rates), the fields returned (rates, stars, guest scores, booking links), and the fallback mode when dates are absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource, then the dated/undated branch, then the constraint list. Every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully tells the agent what comes back (rates, stars, guest scores, booking links) plus the two response modes. The main residual gap is the three undocumented optional params (adults, children, language), so a 6-param tool is not fully specified.

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 only 33% (only check_in/check_out are described). The description partially compensates: it explains the paired conditional role of the two date params and enumerates the 13 accepted destination slugs, which the schema does not (0 enums). But adults, children and language receive no semantic guidance anywhere.

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 resource ('Hotels for a destination') and spells out the two operating modes: dated search returns live Agoda rates, undated search returns an editorial shortlist. An agent can immediately tell this apart from search_flights and search_experiences, which cover different resources.

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?

Gives a crisp conditional: supply check-in/check-out to get live rates, omit them to get the editorial shortlist. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusions (e.g. what to do when a destination is not in the supported list), so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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