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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the operational context: links mirror what is publicly shown on staylist.world, URLs must be preserved unchanged, dated offers are sorted by total, and primary is not a commission preference. It omits anything about caching, rate limits, or failure modes, so not 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the operational constraints; each sentence carries distinct information. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden (booking links plus hotel page, dated offers sorted by total). It could say more about what happens when no dated offers exist or how the links are keyed, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning at all (nothing about adults, checkin/checkout pairing, or children_ages). The schema documents the date-pair coupling and the hotel_id provenance itself, so the baseline 3 is appropriate for a description that neither compensates nor misleads.

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+resource (return approved booking links for a hotel) and adds scope detail (the Staylist hotel page, property links opening on Trip.com/Klook). It is plainly distinguishable from siblings like get_hotel and search_hotels, which fetch hotel data rather than booking URLs.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and there is one negative condition ('this tool cannot book or charge anyone'), which usefully rules out a mistaken intent. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_hotel or search_hotels, nor the prerequisites (e.g. needing a hotel_id from search_hotels).

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