Hotel questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — that answers may be absent and that the content is untrusted user text — but says nothing about result size, ordering, or what happens when the hotel cannot be resolved.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then usage, then a safety caveat. Nothing is redundant; the injection warning earns its place because it changes how an agent handles the output.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the shape of results (question, answer, dates, ordering), and it only says answers may be absent. The hotel-identifier formats and the undocumented `limit` are the remaining gaps for a simple two-parameter lookup.

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 only 50%: the `hotel` parameter is well documented in the schema (three accepted formats), but `limit` has no description at all and the description text does not compensate by explaining paging or result caps. With low coverage the description should have filled this gap and does not.

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: reading public guest questions plus their answers for a given hotel. This is clearly distinct from review-style siblings like eg_reviews, though the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance with examples (transfers, parking, family rules) and contrasts with the facility list, implicitly routing agents away from eg_hotel for these practical details. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative, but the context is clear.

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