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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the accepted date formats, that availability data is only returned when dates are provided, and how the results feed create_booking.space_ids. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, then date format, then the booking handoff. Slightly fragmented across lines but every sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter search tool with a full schema, full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential extras: date format and the workflow link to create_booking. Return-value explanation is not needed since an output schema exists. Nothing critical is missing, though sibling routing guidance would strengthen it.

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 12 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the date formats the description repeats. The description adds no parameter meaning the schema lacks, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mehmonxona qidiradi' = searches hotels) and adds a conditional behavior (returns matching available rooms and space_ids when dates are supplied). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_rentals, but never names the very close siblings check_availability / check_hotel_availability, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 explains that supplying dates triggers availability results, which implies the main usage path, and it describes the downstream booking handoff. However it never states when to prefer this tool over check_hotel_availability or search_rentals, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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