Get hotel reviews

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 needs no restating. The description adds a useful inventory of returned fields (text, dates, ratings, comments) but omits behavioral constraints such as the hidden cap that `language` reduces results to 10 and that `getSentiment` analyzes only the last 1000 reviews.

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 section headers and four-bullet lists are padded with marketing framing ('authentic feedback ... informed booking decisions', 'Trust building', 'Decision support') that carries no operational content. Front-loading is fine, but several sentences do not earn their place.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape, but it never addresses pagination, result limits, or the conditional behavior of `language` and `getSentiment`. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The prose only echoes `hotelId` as a query parameter and adds nothing about limit/offset paging or the language/sentiment interactions, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve guest reviews and ratings for a specific hotel'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_data_hotel or get_data_hotel_ask, which also surface hotel content.

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 lists product-level scenarios (review display, rating aggregation, trust building) rather than conditions that select this tool over an alternative. No sibling is named and no exclusion is given, so usage is only implied by the topic.

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