Hotel details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new semantics — that scores are out of 10 and that `rating` is the same value rescaled to 5 points — which prevents misreading the returned numbers. It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or failure modes for an unknown hotel slug, leaving a small gap.

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 the payload contents, then routing guidance, then a data-semantics footnote about the rating scale. Three tight sentences with no filler or repetition.

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 description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the profile sections and clarifying the two score scales. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it is missing.

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% and the schema description already documents all three accepted identifier forms with an example, so the single parameter is fully specified in structured data. The tool description adds nothing about the `hotel` argument, so the baseline of 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 ('Get one hotel's profile') and then enumerates the exact contents: address, stars, check-in times, description, facilities, rules, guest scores, extras, nearby places. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like eg_rooms or eg_reviews, which target subsets of that 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?

Explicitly situates the tool in a workflow ('Use it after eg_search to compare hotels on amenities') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects them: eg_rooms for dated prices, eg_reviews for guest comments. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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