compare_hotels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the input constraint (Booking.com URLs from search results) and the output aspects, but does not mention error behavior, data freshness, or potential limitations. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second specifies the input source and comparison aspects. No redundant words; all information is relevant.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input requirements, and expected comparison details. It could further specify the output format, but the listed comparison aspects suffice for most use cases.

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 already documents the 'urls' parameter clearly (Array of 2-3 Booking.com hotel URLs). The description adds the valuable instruction that URLs should come from search results, which is not in the schema. This extra guidance elevates it above the baseline.

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 compares 2-3 hotels side-by-side with specific aspects (ratings, prices, amenities, facilities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, get details, or check availability, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context that the input should be Booking.com URLs obtained from search results, implying usage after a search. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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