get_data_hotels

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. The description adds that results are metadata-only (names, addresses, ratings, amenities, images, IDs) and notes hotel IDs feed rate searches, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result-size constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 scannable, but there is heavy redundancy: 'Hotel listings', 'Metadata retrieval', 'complete metadata', and 'matching hotels with complete metadata' repeat the same point across Overview, When to Use, What You Get, and Quick Start. The content could be roughly halved without losing information.

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 23-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description correctly signals that a search criterion must be supplied and sketches the return shape. However, it does not warn about the maximum limit, the default 200-result cap, or mutual exclusivity between criteria, leaving gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 one of the 23 parameters is already documented in the schema, including limit/offset defaults, radius minimum, and placeId semantics. The description's high-level 'Search Options' map adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

The overview states a specific verb+resource ('Search and retrieve hotel listings') and enumerates the returned metadata. It is clear on its own, but it never names or differentiates itself from close siblings like get_data_hotel_search, get_data_hotels_semantic_search, or get_data_hotel, so an agent must guess which hotel-lookup tool to call.

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' and 'Search Options' sections restate the same idea (search by city, coords, placeId, hotelIds) four different ways rather than giving conditions that select this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or sibling routing is provided, so usage is only implied.

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