Hotel details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description goes further by disclosing data conventions not in structured fields: ratings are shown x2 out of 10, landmarks are in km with drive minutes, and the id-vs-slug distinction.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the routing notes follow compactly. The dense parenthetical about numeric ids is slightly awkward to parse but every sentence carries useful 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the resource, the returned field groups, format quirks, and sibling routing, leaving little an agent needs for a correct call.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying the `hotel` workflow: after a numeric id you must obtain the 'city/hotel' ref via mb_find_place(mode='hotel'). That is genuine param guidance beyond the schema.

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?

The description names the resource (a single hotel) and enumerates exactly what is returned: stars, guest rating, reviews, location, landmarks, check-in rules, amenities, FAQ. This clearly separates it from mb_search_hotels and mb_city_hotels, though it opens with a field list rather than an explicit verb.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to siblings with conditions: 'For room prices on dates call mb_hotel_rooms' and 'for the cheapest nights mb_hotel_calendar'. The primary use case for this tool itself is only implied, but the alternative-tool guidance is concrete and actionable.

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