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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description focuses on what changes behaviorally: the return content flips from live rates and booking links (with dates) to an editorial shortlist (without). That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though it omits rate volatility or booking-auth caveats.

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 purpose and mode rule before the destination list. The destination enumeration is long but high-value since no enum exists in the schema; nothing else is wasted.

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 usefully describes return content (rates, stars, guest scores, booking links). The main gap is silence on the adults, children, and language parameters, which an agent might need before invoking.

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%, so the description does useful work by listing valid destinations inline (effectively an enum the schema lacks) and implying check_in/check_out semantics. However, adults, children, and language are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clearly differentiates itself from siblings like search_flights, search_experiences, and search_transfers. The dual-mode behavior is spelled out in the opening two clauses.

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 clear rule for the two modes: with dates you get live Agoda rates, without dates you get the editorial shortlist. It does not name a sibling alternative for hotel booking or availability, but the conditional usage is unambiguous.

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