Get Hotel Offer Details

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond these by disclosing that prices may shift, that it never collects payment details, that it returns a click-through link, and that expired offers produce a specific error message. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not offer, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (main description, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat repetitive of the input schema (the Args section duplicates schema descriptions), but each section carries useful information and there is no fluff. A slightly tighter version could omit the repetition, but overall it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 compensates by listing the exact fields returned (hotel name, price, dates, room, board, cancellation deadline, booking link). It also covers error handling and usage context. For a single-offer detail tool with read-only semantics, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents both offer_id and response_format, including their types, defaults, and descriptions. The description repeats the same info (e.g., 'offerId returned by search_flexible_hotel_offers') without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The expiry note appears in error handling, not in parameter semantics, so the description adds marginal value over 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 states a specific verb ('fetch'), a precise resource ('full, up-to-date details for a single hotel offer previously returned by search_flexible_hotel_offers'), and explicitly ties it to a sibling search tool. This clearly differentiates it from the siblings (resolve_city_code, list_hotels_in_city, search_flexible_offers), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and when to use it.

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?

The description gives explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' examples, including a concrete scenario (double-check price before booking) and a negative condition (no offer_id yet -> run search first). It also states the timing requirement ('call this before telling the user a final price or sending them to book'), leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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