List hotels (content)

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Static hotel portfolio' usefully signals read-only, non-live content (no rates or availability), but it never states the operation is non-mutating outright, nor does it describe pagination/limit behavior or any auth requirements. Partial coverage for a read tool.

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 em-dash-delimited sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists outputs. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description wisely enumerates the returned fields, and with no annotations it correctly frames the data as static. For a simple three-parameter, zero-required list tool this is close to sufficient; only pagination behavior and permission expectations remain unstated.

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% and each parameter already documents itself, including the mutually exclusive 'provide this OR' relationship. The description's 'destination or set of hotel codes' restates that without adding format, syntax, or defaulting detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse the static hotel portfolio') and enumerates the returned fields (names, categories, coordinates, addresses), so the agent knows this is a content lookup rather than a live-availability query. It does not explicitly name the near-neighbor siblings search_hotels or get_hotel_details, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 and schema together convey the two entry modes (by destination or by hotel codes), which implies when to reach for it. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_hotels, get_hotel_details, or check_rate instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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