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

With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent safety profile, the description adds real semantic context beyond them: refundable=null means unknown, prices are not guaranteed, the AI overview exists only "where one exists," and hotel policies reveal whether guests from all countries are accepted. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, so it stops 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and almost every clause earns its place because no output schema exists, so the return-field inventory is genuinely useful. It is nonetheless one long run-on sentence with stacked parentheticals that could be more scannable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it lists returned fields, explains the photos omission, the AI-overview conditionality, null semantics, and price caveats. Only pagination/response-shape mechanics are unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 60%, and the description compensates by explaining that dates/guests drive live-provider booking offers and that dates and occupancy must be carried over from the search, giving operational meaning to checkin/checkout/adults/children_ages. hotel_id is left to the schema, which already documents it.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Hotel details") and enumerates the concrete fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_hotels by referencing "from the search," but never names siblings explicitly, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Guidance is implied rather than stated: "Preserve dates and occupancy from the search" tells the agent to reuse search parameters, and "No photos: people see those on the booking page" redirects one need. However, it never states when to call this versus get_booking_link or search_hotels, leaving routing to inference.

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