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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added behavior is that the exact free-cancellation deadline is computed from the check-in date, which is useful, but much of the remaining text restates return fields already covered by the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists outputs, then input provenance. It is long but each 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to establish scope and inputs, which it does fully: what is returned, for which entity, and where the required ids come from. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters, including the provenance of propertyId and ratePlanId and the purpose of checkInDate. The description reinforces the two id parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 ('Returns the cancellation terms for one rate plan at an OpenTravel partner hotel') and enumerates the concrete outputs: refundability, free-cancellation window, refund percentage, summary, and computed deadline. That level of specificity clearly separates it from siblings like get_hotel_detail or cancel_booking.

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 clear provenance for two of the three required inputs ('Takes the propertyId and the ratePlanId from get_hotel_detail'), which tells the agent when in a workflow this call fits. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternatives (e.g., that this is not the tool for actually cancelling), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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