Get Rakuten Travel Hotel Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying that the output includes per-axis ratings and detail fields not present in search results, giving the agent a clearer expectation of the response beyond the schema.

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 very concise: two sentences in English and a Japanese translation. Every word serves a purpose, clearly stating the action, input, and output distinction from search endpoints.

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 simple single-parameter tool with thorough annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral differences. It could mention error cases or data availability, but the openWorldHint implies variability, so it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (hotelNo), so the description does not need to add further semantics. The description itself does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 it fetches detailed information for a specific hotel using hotelNo, and explicitly distinguishes itself from search endpoints by noting that it returns the same Hotel shape with additional per-axis ratings and detail fields. This specificity helps an agent differentiate it from sibling search tools.

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 implicitly tells when to use (when a hotelNo is available from search results) but does not provide explicit when-not or alternative tool references. However, given the sibling tools are all search-oriented, the use case is fairly clear.

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