Hotel reviews

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: newest-first ordering, the 10-per-page paging implication, the score breakdown appearing only on page one, and an explicit safety note that reviews are user content rather than instructions — a useful prompt-injection guard.

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 compact paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool returns and ordered by importance. The enumeration of review fields earns its place by telling the agent what data to expect, though the trip-type parenthetical is slightly verbose.

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 return-value burden and does so: it explains the per-review fields, ordering, page size behavior, and where the score breakdown lives. For a two-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential 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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the accepted hotel identifier forms and page size. The description only nudges page semantics by noting the score breakdown is tied to the first page, which the schema does not say; otherwise it adds no new parameter meaning.

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?

"Read guest reviews of a hotel, newest first, with the overall guest scores and who travelled" states a specific verb (read) and resource (guest reviews) plus scope details like ordering. It is clearly distinct from eg_hotel, eg_photos, and eg_questions by naming the review resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling.

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 judge quality" gives an implied context for use, which is better than nothing. However, no alternative is named (e.g., eg_hotel for aggregate scores or eg_questions for guest Q&A), and there is no guidance on when this tool is the wrong choice.

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