Get hotel details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the data is 'static catalogue' (i.e. not live/possibly stale) and that prices and availability are absent, plus that includeRooms expands the payload. No auth or error behavior is mentioned, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences: contents first, the one optional parameter second, the exclusion last. Front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 assumes the burden of describing the return payload and does so field-by-field. It does not cover shape details such as how photos/facilities are returned (list vs. nested, any paging) or behavior for an unknown hotelId, leaving a small completeness gap for a zero-annotation-return 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 0%, so the description must carry the semantics. It does describe includeRooms precisely ('adds catalogue rooms') and ties hotelId to the returned fact set, which is more than the schema alone conveys; only the accepted format/range of hotelId is left to 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?

States a specific verb-less but unambiguous retrieval: static catalogue facts for a given hotelId, and enumerates exactly what comes back (address, contact, description, policies, check-in/out, facilities, photos). The clause 'No live prices or availability' separates it from get_rates, and the resource name separates it from search_hotels.

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?

Implied context is clear — call this when you already have a hotelId and need catalogue detail rather than pricing or discovery, and the closing sentence steers away from rate/availability tools. It never names get_rates or search_hotels explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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