Hotel photos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the results are full-size JPEG URLs hosted on eghamat24.com and are organized into main picture, gallery, and per-room-type groups, which no structured field discloses. It omits any note on how limit truncates or whether ordering is stable.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding, and the core scope statement (what photos are returned) is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing could be removed 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 two-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (main, gallery, room-type photos) and in what form (full-size JPEG URLs), which is exactly what the agent needs since no output schema exists. Only truncation behavior for the limit is unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the three accepted hotel identifier formats. The description adds only the implicit hint that photos are grouped per room type; it says nothing extra about the hotel or limit parameters. 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 ('List the photo URLs of a hotel') and breaks the scope into three concrete parts: main picture, hotel gallery, and per-room-type photos. This distinguishes it well from eg_hotel (hotel detail) and eg_rooms (room data), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use it to show or describe how a hotel and its rooms look' gives a usage context but no explicit when-not conditions or pointers to alternative tools such as eg_hotel or eg_rooms. An agent can infer the intent, but routing between photo retrieval and hotel/room detail retrieval is left to inference.

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