List hotel facilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that no parameters are required and that the full facility set (not a filtered subset) is returned, though it says nothing about pagination, caching, or data freshness.

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 structure is front-loaded and readable, but there is real redundancy: 'Multi-language names' and 'Translations' are the same bullet twice, and the Overview and Quick Start both restate that facility IDs are used in hotel search filters. Roughly a third of the text repeats itself.

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 zero-parameter reference-data endpoint with complete annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed: it needs no arguments, returns the whole facility list with IDs and localized names, and the IDs plug into hotel search filters. No material gap remains.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No parameters required,' which is consistent with the empty schema and closes the loop for the agent rather than leaving it to inspect the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get all available hotel facilities (amenities) with multi-language translations') and frames the output's purpose (facility IDs for search filters). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_data_hoteltypes or get_data_languages, which cover different reference data.

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 four concrete scenarios (facility filters, facility display, multi-language support, reference data), which is strong context. However, it never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so the agent must infer the boundary with sibling reference-data endpoints on its own.

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