get_data_hotels_semantic_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: beta status with a stability caveat, and the shape of what is returned (semantic attributes, relevance scores, metadata). No auth or rate-limit notes, hence not a 5.

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 a clear overview, but the markdown scaffolding is heavy and several ideas repeat: intent-based matching appears in Overview, When to Use, and Quick Start, and 'semantically match' is restated three times. Readable but not tight.

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 'What You Get' section usefully documents the return payload (hotels, semantic attributes, relevance scores, metadata), which is exactly what's needed. The beta caveat is disclosed. Only the lack of sibling disambiguation keeps it from a 5.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema (query, limit, min_rating), so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the natural-language nature of query with example phrases but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource (semantic hotel search via natural language) and clearly frames the differentiator: meaning-based matching rather than keywords. An agent can distinguish this from get_data_hotels, get_data_hotel_search, and get_data_hotels_room_search without opening schemas.

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 clear triggers (natural language, intent-based, conversational, semantic matching) plus concrete example queries, so the agent knows the context for invoking it. However, it never explicitly routes against the nearest siblings (e.g. get_data_hotel_search or get_data_hotels), leaving the choice to inference.

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