Room reviews and rating

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: 'rating is null and reviews empty when the room has no ratings yet (new rooms)' and that reviews are sorted 'newest first (with host replies).' It stops short of pagination/volume caveats, but the edge-case disclosure is valuable.

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 tightly packed sentences: the return contract first, then the empty-state caveat and cross-tool routing. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is 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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to add what structured fields cannot: the empty-room edge case, sort order, and sibling routing. All are present, and the required room_id plus pagination are schema-documented.

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% – room_id, page (zero-based), and limit are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the 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 precise verb+resource (get a room's rating) and enumerates the exact payload: 0-5 rating, star histogram, six category scores, recommend percentage, written reviews newest first with host replies. This is far more specific than the title and lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after ot_room or ot_search_rooms to judge quality' and routes the host-level variant to 'ot_host has reviews across all of a host's rooms.' Both the when-to-use condition and the alternative tool are named.

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