Get hotel planning guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the content shape (what to ask, evidence, ranking method) and that it should be consumed before planning, which tells the agent this is static advisory content rather than a live data call.

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 sentences, no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded in the first sentence and the content summary follows, which is the correct ordering for a read-me-first tool.

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 parameterless, annotation-covered guidance tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent when to call it and what it contains — sufficient to invoke correctly. A small gap remains: it never explicitly says the result is text guidance (vs. structured hotel data), which an agent could infer but must guess.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete with additionalProperties=false. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter explanation is required.

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 and its advisory role ('planning guide') and enumerates the topics it explains (what to ask, live-rate evidence, how to rank options). It is clear what the tool delivers, though the phrasing 'read before...' describes timing more than the artifact itself, leaving the title to carry the 'this is a guide' framing.

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?

Gives concrete trigger scenarios: flexible dates, budget trips, split stays, multiple destinations, best-hotel comparisons. It implies the guide precedes the sibling tools (search_hotels, get_rates) but never names an alternative or states an explicit exclusion, so routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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