get_hotel_faq

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

The description adds the qualifier 'verified' which hints at data quality, but otherwise it simply restates the read-only nature already declared by annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or error handling. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds minimal but non-zero value, warranting a 3.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists specific topics. No filler words, no redundancy. Every element adds value, making it an excellent model of conciseness.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema present, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the what (FAQs on specific topics) and the scope (property). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly. The only minor gap is not mentioning the provider default, but that is in the schema, so a 4 is fair.

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 both parameters (hotel_id and provider) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, such as how they interact or typical usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full coverage with no extra description value.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('verified property FAQs') with specific topics (check-in, parking, etc.). It is unambiguous and tells the agent exactly what this tool retrieves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_property_details, which might also cover some of these topics, so it loses a point for lack of explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer from the name and context that this is the go-to for FAQs, which is not sufficient for confident selection.

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