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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral caveats beyond those: 'refundable=null means unknown', 'Prices are not guaranteed', and that booking-site offers appear only for live-provider hotels.

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?

It leads with the resource ('Hotel details:') which is good front-loading, but the bulk is one very long run-on enumeration of return fields. It is dense and readable but not tightly scoped; the field list could have been trimmed since much of it is enumerative rather than decision-relevant.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (photos, review sub-scores, policies, transfer info, booking links, offers), so an agent knows what to expect. It also warns about unpriced/unknown refundability and non-guaranteed prices, covering the main surprises for a detail-plus-offer tool.

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 60%, with the checkin/checkout pairing constraint and the hotel_id provenance already documented in the schema. The description only adds the implicit requirement to reuse search dates and occupancy, without clarifying format or bounds for adults/children_ages, so it neither compensates for nor much improves on the schema.

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 states the resource precisely ('Hotel details' plus live-provider booking offers for the requested dates and guests) and enumerates the content returned, so an agent can tell it is a detail/offer lookup rather than a search. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like search_hotels or get_booking_link, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

The closing sentence 'Preserve dates and occupancy from the search' implies the intended workflow (call after search_hotels, carry over checkin/checkout/adults), which is useful contextual guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no direct routing to get_booking_link for link-only needs.

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