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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context ('SplashScout cards', age scores, and features), but it does not disclose anything else about behavior such as matching semantics, errors, or ordering.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output format. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with a single documented parameter, rich safety annotations, sibling context, and an output schema. The description supplies the remaining essential context: the accepted payload size (2–4), the comparison scope, and the output presentation.

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 the schema already documents the ids parameter as 'property ids or names'. The description adds only slight emphasis that either ids or names are accepted, which matches but does not meaningfully extend the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Compare 2–4 family stays side by side') and names a concrete output format ('SplashScout cards', 'age scores and features'). It clearly separates comparison from the sibling retrieval/search tools like get_hotel and search_family_hotels.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool via 'Compare side by side', which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_hotel for a single stay or search_family_hotels for discovery.

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