ihg_search_hotels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it searches across IHG brands, but does not describe output structure, pagination, or whether results include availability/pricing. As a search tool, the behavior is straightforward, but some transparency is missing.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful brand list. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic search tool, covering the main parameters. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's scope is narrow. Slightly more detail (e.g., result contents) could improve completeness.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a summary of key criteria and brand support, but does not add deeper semantics beyond what the schema descriptions provide.

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 a specific action ('Search for IHG hotels') with a defined scope (location, dates, guest count). It also lists supported brands, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ihg_get_hotel_details or ihg_book_room.

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 this tool is for finding hotels, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., whether login is needed). It provides context but lacks clear exclusions or alternative references.

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