hotels_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns public static metadata and excludes dynamic content, setting accurate expectations. It does not mention authentication, error behavior, or output structure, but for a read-only property details tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant wording. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence concisely clarifies scope and exclusions. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what is returned and what is excluded, giving the agent enough context to call it correctly. It lacks explicit guidance on error handling or URL format validation, but these are minor gaps given the straightforward nature of the 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?

The input schema describes the sole parameter 'request' as 'Canonical Hotels.com property URL', and the tool description reinforces this by referring to 'one canonical Hotels.com property page'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Hotels.com property details', specifying the returned static metadata (name, address, rating, images, amenities) and explicitly excluding dynamic data (availability, prices, booking, reviews). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hotels_rates, hotels_offers, and hotels_reviews, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implicitly guides usage by listing what is excluded (date-bound availability, prices, booking, review content), signaling that this tool is for static property info and that dynamic aspects are handled elsewhere. However, it does not name the alternative tools explicitly, so an agent must infer which sibling to use for those excluded data types.

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