travel_search_hotels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (list with specific fields) and importantly the mock mode default behavior ('returns deterministic fixture hotels'), which is non-obvious and critical for setting expectations. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but this is implied by its search nature and the subsequent travel_get_quote step.

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?

Three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second details the return values, and the third provides integration and mock mode information. Every sentence contributes new information, with no redundant or filler content. The structure is front-loaded with the action, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description is quite complete for a search tool: it covers purpose, return fields, integration to travel_get_quote, and mock mode default. It does not mention edge cases such as no-results behavior or result ordering, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema. The mock mode disclosure is particularly valuable in a multi-tool environment.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for destination, checkIn, checkOut, and guests. The description adds only a high-level reference to 'destination' and 'date range' and does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema parameters. It does not mention the 'guests' parameter, but the schema already covers it. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance.

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 clearly states the verb ('Search'), resource ('hotels'), and scope ('at a destination for a given date range'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like travel_get_quote, travel_book_hotel, and travel_get_booking_status by focusing on the search/list step. The return content (IDs, names, locations, ratings, nightly prices) is explicitly enumerated.

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 description provides a clear usage context: it is for searching hotels, and the instruction to use the returned hotelId with travel_get_quote guides the agent to the next step. It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), but the integration hint strongly implies its role in the workflow. Sibling tool names reinforce the differentiation.

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