Карточка отеля, отзывы и тарифы

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: rates are only included when dates are provided, and no API call exists to accept bookHash for booking. This is extra behavioral information that annotations do not convey.

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 pack the essential information: card fields, date-dependent behavior, hotel_id source, booking limitation, and next step. No filler or repetition, and the most critical limitation is placed at the end for emphasis.

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 read-only information tool with an output schema, the description covers the core usage pattern and an important edge case (no booking). It tells the agent where to get the required parameter and what to expect. Combined with annotations and the output schema, an agent can call the tool correctly without further assumptions.

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 schema has zero descriptions for parameters, so the description carries a significant burden. It does clarify that hotel_id comes from hotel_search() and that dates trigger rates, but it does not explain limit, adults, children, or the format of checkin/checkout fields. Some parameter semantics are compensated, but others remain opaque.

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 title and description clearly define the tool's output: a hotel card with address, check-in time, reviews, and rates when dates are supplied. It references hotel_search() as the source of hotel_id, which differentiates it from the hotel_search sibling. Though the description lacks an explicit verb, the resource and scope are 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 instructs that hotel_id comes from hotel_search(), establishing the intended call sequence. It explicitly states booking via MCP is not possible and points to an external app/site, which prevents misuse. It does not list all alternative tools, but the guidance is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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