jolly_get_hotel

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.