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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the nature of the content returned (live rates, per-room rate plans), but says nothing about latency, rate freshness, failure modes when a name/city lookup is ambiguous, or whether the pricing is cacheable — so it adds only modest context beyond structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns before moving to identification inputs and then the sibling boundary. 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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't restate return fields, and it covers identification, data scope and one alternative. The only gap is an explicit contrast against get_ota_hotel_detail, a name-adjacent sibling an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 100%, so the schema carries the per-field detail and baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly further by stating the resolution pairing ('a hotel name plus city') and the provenance of propertyId (search results with source 'OPENTRAVEL_DIRECT'), which clarifies a real dependency the schema only encodes per-field.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: prices and availability for one OpenTravel direct-listed hotel over a date range, plus the returned payload (photos, amenities, room types with rate plans and total prices). It also implicitly carves out the sibling boundary by specifying 'OpenTravel direct-listed', which distinguishes it from get_ota_hotel_detail.

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 entry conditions: take propertyId from search results (source 'OPENTRAVEL_DIRECT'), or resolve by hotelName plus city for a known direct listing. It names get_hotel_info as the static-facts alternative, but never explicitly contrasts with get_ota_hotel_detail or search_hotels_live, leaving one sibling boundary to inference.

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