search_hotels

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions returns (hotel names, brands, etc.) but doesn't cover pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated).

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 front-load the purpose and returns with zero waste. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and output.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and returns but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how results are structured, limitations) that would be helpful given the complexity of 7 parameters.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying location and dates are used, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 searches for Hilton hotels by location and dates, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'Hilton hotels'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_hotel_details' or 'get_rooms' by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for finding hotels, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., login status), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_hotel_details' for specific hotel info.

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