get_data_chains

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the description's burden is reduced. It usefully adds that no parameters are required, that the full chain list is returned with numeric IDs, and the intended downstream use of those IDs — behavior the annotations cannot express, and valuable since there is no output 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 markdown headers make it skimmable and the key line is front-loaded, but four sections restate the same single idea (returns all chains, IDs usable in filters) with heavy repetition. For a zero-parameter reference endpoint, roughly half the text is redundant.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does — it enumerates chain list, IDs and names explicitly. Complete enough to call correctly; only the relationship to get_data_hoteltypes is left unaddressed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description reinforces this with 'No parameters required,' leaving no ambiguity that this is a no-argument listing call.

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 overview states a specific verb and resource — 'Get all available hotel chains' with concrete examples (Marriott, Hilton, IHG) — and ties it to chain filtering in hotel searches. It is clearly distinguishable from get_data_hotels/get_data_hotel_search, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the near-neighbour get_data_hoteltypes, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 'When to Use' section gives three concrete scenarios (chain filters, brand selection, reference data), which is more than most sibling definitions offer. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative tool, so it is clear context without routing rules.

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