Similar hotels

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it warns that `price_from` is an *undated* starting price rather than a real quote for specific dates, which prevents a classic misreading. It does not mention result count behavior beyond the schema default, which keeps it from a 5.

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: the purpose first, then the trigger condition plus the clarifying caveat about price semantics. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it returns, when to call it, what the price means) are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent most needs: what comes back (a list of alternatives plus a starting price) and the semantics of that price. The only omission is the behavior of `limit` and what a returned alternative entry contains, both minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 50%: the `hotel` parameter is well documented in the schema (path form, full URL, or city/hotel slug), but the description only clarifies `price_from`, which is a returned field rather than an input. The `limit` parameter (default 8, max 10) is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 hotels the site suggests as alternatives to one hotel, with a starting price') and scopes it to a single input hotel, which separates it from the sibling search tools (eg_search, eg_hotels listings) without ambiguity. An agent can tell at a glance that this is a recommendations endpoint, not a search.

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 when a hotel is sold out or too dear' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the second sentence names concrete alternatives ('get real prices for dates with eg_rooms or eg_search'), which also implies the negative case (do not use this for dated pricing). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are inferable from named siblings.

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