compare_hotel_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: which providers are queried, what data is extracted, and that it highlights the winning platform. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only comparison tool, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds concrete detail without waste. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The output schema is present, so return-value detail is not the description's job. The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, which providers, and what it produces. It could note that it searches by hotel_name and dates (already in schema), but it is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 each parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds some context (e.g., that it extracts nightly rates and perks), but does not provide new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 a specific verb ('Perform a cross-platform parallel price check') and resource ('across all providers'), and enumerates the exact providers (Agoda, Booking.com, Hotels.com) and output (lowest rates, perks, URLs, winning platform). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_hotels or get_room_grid.

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 when to use it (when an agent needs to compare prices across providers) and what it does, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The tool name itself signals comparison, so the context is clear, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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