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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Detail for one hotel' strongly implies a non-mutating lookup, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, nothing is said about behavior for invalid or stale slugs, or about whether the full URL form is resolved via redirect/parsing.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the operation is stated before the parameter note. The only quibble is the elliptical first sentence, which reads as a note fragment rather than a full description.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered: what it returns conceptually (hotel detail) and both accepted input formats with an example. Missing only edge-case behavior and explicit tie-in to the search workflow, which are minor at this complexity.

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 0% (the single property is bare 'string'), so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives a concrete example slug ('the-x-belek') and an alternate accepted format, a full jollytur.com hotel URL. That materially extends what the schema conveys, though it does not say whether the bare slug or URL is preferred when both could work.

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 operation (fetch detail for a single hotel) and names the resource domain ('Jolly hotel'), which separates it from the sibling jolly_search_hotels and jolly_list_campaigns. The fragment phrasing ('Detail for one Jolly hotel') is slightly clipped but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical '(from search results)' hints at the intended workflow — call search first, then fetch detail by slug — but this is implied rather than stated as an explicit when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search results already returned, and no exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the upstream source (/kampanyalar) and the shape of each item (title + link), which is useful. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether results are cached or live-scraped, or what happens on fetch failure.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and tucks the return fields into parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces polish but not economy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description covers what and where from. The only missing piece an agent might want is a hint about result volume or freshness, which is minor given the schema carries the rest.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering options exist.

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 names the resource (Jolly Tur campaigns), qualifies it as current, and even identifies the source path /kampanyalar, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It implicitly contrasts with the hotel-oriented siblings, though it never names them explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or reference to the hotel siblings. Usage is strongly implied by the resource itself — a zero-argument listing call for campaign promotions — but the agent must infer that this is the entry point for deals rather than hotel lookup.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that prices only appear when both dates are supplied, that results are paginated at 20 hotels per page, that hotel_name needs 4+ characters, and what fields come back. Unstated behaviour such as authentication needs, sort order, or whether prices are per-room vs per-person keeps this below a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence establishes purpose, then each parameter is addressed in a compact, consistently labelled clause followed by return fields. No filler and no repetition of structured data beyond the useful minimum.

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 five-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description covers formats, the price precondition, pagination, and the result shape. Environment-level details like auth or rate limits are missing, but nothing an agent needs in order to construct a correct call is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: slug format with example values for city, YYYY-MM-DD format for the date pair, page semantics with page size, and a minimum length for hotel_name. Minor gaps remain, such as the default page value and whether dates are optional or merely required for pricing.

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?

"Search Jolly hotels in a city" states a specific verb and resource, and the city-scoped framing implicitly separates it from jolly_get_hotel (single hotel) and jolly_list_campaigns. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but an agent can tell these apart from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns it needs a city slug and that check_in/check_out are both required for prices, which is genuine conditional guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer jolly_get_hotel, nor any mention of exclusions or failure modes for an invalid city.

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