hotels_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the result is date-bound, prices are live rates, results come a page, and region_id changes resolution behavior. It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination details, or explicitly state non-mutation, but for a search-only 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and output, the second gives a critical input constraint, the third clarifies pricing correctness. Every sentence earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned property-card contents and key behavioral details. It is arguably complete for a search tool, though it could be more explicit about required check-in/check-out parameters and pagination size.

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 schema only declares a nested 'request' object, so its internal fields are absent. The description adds real meaning by naming query and region_id and stressing that checked-in/checked-out dates are used, but it does not give the exact field names, types, or the envelope of the nested request structure. With nominally 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the extra parameter hints do not push it past that.

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 opens with 'Search Hotels.com hotels', a specific verb+resource, and goes on to specify the two search modes (free-text destination and numeric region_id) and the concrete output shape (property cards with prices, review score, location, thumbnail, amenities, badges). This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from sibling hotel tools such as hotels_rates, hotels_property, or expedia_properties_search.

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 gives clear usage context: you must provide exactly one of query or region_id, and it explains the behavioral tradeoff that region_id skips destination typeahead resolution. It does not explicitly recommend when to use this tool over alternatives like hotels_rates or booking_hotel_detail, so it misses the full when-not/alternatives guidance of a 5.

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