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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: this endpoint is date-agnostic, deliberately carries no prices or availability, and is scoped to 'direct-listed' properties. It stops short of covering rate limits or error behaviour, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the defining trait (no dates needed) followed by the returned-data inventory and the sibling comparison. The long enumerated clause list is justified by the number of distinct facts returned, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, yet the description still tells the agent what categories of data come back. Combined with the date-agnostic scope, sibling routing and identifier provenance, nothing needed to call this tool 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 propertyId, language and queryText; baseline is 3. The description reinforces where propertyId comes from (search results) but adds nothing about the language or queryText parameters, so it does not exceed what the schema provides.

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?

Names the specific resource (static facts about an OpenTravel direct-listed hotel) and enumerates exactly which fields are returned — photos, description, address, facilities, check-in/out times, cancellation policy, room details. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_hotel_detail by scope (no dates, no prices, no availability).

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?

States the selection condition outright: use this when no check-in/check-out date is needed, and use get_hotel_detail instead when a specific date range's prices and availability are required. It also names the source of the required identifier (the propertyId UUID from search results), so the agent knows where to get the input.

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