Search Rakuten Travel Hotels (by Area)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: it returns summaries (prices, addresses, review stats, ratings) and uses area hierarchy. No negative traits disclosed, but the description aligns well and adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise: two sentences in English and two in Japanese. It front-loads key information (search by area or coordinates, return fields). No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description covers main use cases and references the area class tool. It mentions return fields. It does not explain pagination details (hits/page) but schema handles that. Fairly complete for the tool's 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the area code hierarchy and coordinate search with radius, and specifying return fields (prices, addresses, review stats, ratings) not in schema. This provides useful context beyond parameter names.

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 hotels by area code (hierarchical regions) or latitude/longitude. It explicitly mentions returning hotel summaries with prices, addresses, review stats, and ratings. It differentiates from siblings like travel_hotel_detail_search and travel_vacant_hotel_search by focusing on area-based simple search.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for searching by area code or coordinates. It recommends travel_get_area_class to discover area codes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative siblings for specific needs (e.g., detail or vacancy).

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