Search Rakuten Travel Hotels (Available on Dates)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: it enumerates the returned room-plan fields, and critically warns that 'Prices are for a single night, not the whole stay' and that chargeBasis can be per_person or per_room — non-obvious semantics that would otherwise cause misreporting. No output schema exists, so this disclosure carries weight.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and constraint, then return contents, then the per-night price caveat. The bilingual duplication is expected for this tool family and each sentence carries content. Slightly padded by restating the parameter-sharing note.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return shape (hotel + room plans with plan name, price, chargeBasis, breakfast flag, reserve URL) and the price-basis caveat. Combined with a fully documented 13-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though routing guidance versus sibling search tools remains thin.

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 100%, so every parameter including checkinDate/checkoutDate formats, hits, page, roomNum, adultNum, and the class codes is already documented. The description adds only that area/coordinate parameters match travel_simple_hotel_search, which is minor. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Search Rakuten Travel for hotels') plus the defining constraint ('with rooms available on specific check-in/check-out dates'), which is what separates it from travel_simple_hotel_search and travel_keyword_hotel_search. The reference to sharing parameters with travel_simple_hotel_search signals the family relationship but never explicitly says how the two differ.

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 usage via the required check-in/check-out dates and the note that area/coordinate parameters mirror travel_simple_hotel_search, but it never states when to pick this over travel_simple_hotel_search, travel_keyword_hotel_search, or travel_hotel_detail_search. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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