List Hotels in a City

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool does NOT return prices/availability, states 'This tool does not modify any data' (consistent with destructiveHint=false), and documents the exact error message for invalid city codes. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 organized with clear section headers (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every section earns its place — the examples, error handling, and return description all add operational value. Slightly longer than minimal, but the structure makes it scannable, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple (4 params, 1 required, all schema-documented, no nested objects, no output schema) with rich annotations. The description covers what's returned (hotel name, hotelId, chain code, coordinates), error handling, the chaining pattern with search_flexible_hotel_offers, and when not to use it. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly — including awareness that no output schema exists but the return content is described.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description largely mirrors the schema (e.g., radius range 1-300, default 20, response_format enum). It adds modest value by embedding usage context in the examples (e.g., 'narrow radius_km' for a beachfront search, 'use resolve_city_code to find it' — though that hint also exists in the schema). The description doesn't introduce meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb-resource-scope combination: 'List hotels (with their Amadeus hotelId) located in a given IATA city code, optionally within a radius.' It explicitly differentiates itself from search_flexible_hotel_offers by clarifying it returns only hotel identity/location, NOT prices or availability. An agent can distinguish this from all three siblings without opening their schemas.

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 names the exact alternative (search_flexible_hotel_offers), the chaining pattern (pass returned hotelIds into it), and provides concrete 'Use when' / 'Don't use when' examples. It even shows how to narrow radius_km for neighborhood-specific searches. Nothing about when to invoke this tool is left to inference.

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