get_hotel_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned (amenities, description, etc.) but lacks behavioral details such as whether this requires authentication (e.g., from 'hilton_login'), rate limits, error handling, or if it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic output.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key details retrieved. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes specific examples without redundancy. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and content, making it highly concise and effective for its length.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output content well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, errors) and doesn't explain return values since there's no output schema. For a read-focused tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in operational details.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (hotelId, checkIn, checkOut) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain format nuances or usage beyond implying hotelId can be from search results. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Hilton hotel'), with specific examples of what information is included (amenities, description, photos, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_hotels' by focusing on a single hotel's details rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_rooms' or 'get_reservation', which might also retrieve hotel-related details, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage when detailed hotel info is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_hotels' (for finding hotels) or 'get_rooms' (for room-specific details). It mentions 'hotel code or full URL from search_hotels results', which provides some context but lacks clear when-not or alternative guidance. This is typical implied usage without strong exclusions.

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