Google Travel Hotels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds the exact upstream target (google_travel_hotels) and the output format (Markdown listings). It does not cover rate limits, pagination depth, or result-count behavior, which keeps it below 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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and target first, use case second, docs link last. No filler and the key information 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?

With no output schema present, the description responsibly states that results come back as Markdown listings, which is the main thing an agent needs to know about the return value. Pagination semantics and result volume remain unstated, a minor gap for a 5-parameter read 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 100%, so every parameter including the enum-constrained deviceType is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how pageFrom interacts with results or what locale affects), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: search Google Travel for hotels via the Decodo web scraping API, returning Markdown. The hotel-specific scope distinguishes it implicitly from generic siblings like google_search or scrape_as_markdown, though no sibling is named.

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 sentence 'Use it to find hotel options and prices for a destination' gives a clear use case, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over google_search or scrape_as_markdown, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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