search_hotels

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing that the guest pays the hotel directly, the hotel provides the confirmation number, and loyalty points apply. This contextualizes the search results beyond the safety profile, though it does not cover rate limits or auth requirements.

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 three sentences: the first clearly states the function and output, the second and third provide behavioral context about payment and loyalty. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and payment details. It does not mention pagination behavior even though cursor/search_id parameters exist, nor does it explain default values for guests_per_room or rooms. However, annotations and schema fill some gaps, making it fairly complete for a search 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 coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., chain_code, radius, pagination fields). The description adds payment context but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool searches and books hotels by location and dates, and returns available properties with nightly rates across various brands, distinguishing it from sibling tools like book_hotel (for actual booking) or get_hotel_details (for specific details). It uses specific verbs ('Search and book') and resources ('hotels'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for searching hotels by location and dates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like book_hotel or get_hotel_details. It provides context about what it returns but no direct exclusions or scenario comparisons. Clear but could be more explicit.

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