Add a hotel booking to a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: a 'Hotels and lodging' section is auto-created when missing, and the call returns a resolved hotel name plus booking window. It says nothing about what happens when the hotel string matches multiple places, whether duplicate bookings are created on repeat calls, or failure behavior for unresolvable names.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the return. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 four-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, an important side effect, and the shape of the response, which is the main gap left by the absent output schema. Only failure/ambiguity handling is missing, and that is a modest omission.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the Google Places matching behavior and the check_out-after-check_in constraint. The description only restates 'with check-in and check-out dates' and adds no format, range, or resolution semantics beyond 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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource ('Adds a hotel booking to a Wanderlog trip') and pins the scope with check-in/check-out dates, which clearly separates it from wanderlog_add_place or wanderlog_add_car_rental. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation comes from the resource noun rather than deliberate routing.

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?

Use is implied by the resource (create a lodging booking). There is no guidance on the obvious adjacent decision: whether the agent should first run wanderlog_search_hotels to resolve a name, or just pass a free-text query here, and no when-not guidance (e.g., for existing bookings or edits).

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