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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and side-effect information. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds that it 'returns available room types, prices, and booking details,' giving some behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state that no booking is made or that prices are not guaranteed, which would be useful for a tool carrying no 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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action ('Check room availability and prices') and follow up with output details. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core purpose and return value. It does not go into detail about exact output fields or limitations, but it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by mentioning available room types, prices, and booking details.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented (e.g., hotelUrl, checkIn, checkOut, rooms, guests). The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, only echoing 'specific hotel' and 'given dates.' Since the schema already covers the parameters fully, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check room availability and prices for a specific hotel on given dates.' This specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('room availability and prices'), and scope ('specific hotel', 'given dates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_hotels (searching hotels) and compare_hotels (comparing options).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a 'specific hotel' and 'given dates.' It implies this tool is for checking availability rather than searching or comparing, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Sibling names like find_hotels and compare_hotels indicate alternatives, but the description itself could have explicitly said 'use this when you already have a hotel URL.'

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the input constraint (Booking.com URLs from search results) and the output aspects, but does not mention error behavior, data freshness, or potential limitations. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second specifies the input source and comparison aspects. No redundant words; all information is relevant.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input requirements, and expected comparison details. It could further specify the output format, but the listed comparison aspects suffice for most use cases.

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?

The schema already documents the 'urls' parameter clearly (Array of 2-3 Booking.com hotel URLs). The description adds the valuable instruction that URLs should come from search results, which is not in the schema. This extra guidance elevates it above the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool compares 2-3 hotels side-by-side with specific aspects (ratings, prices, amenities, facilities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, get details, or check availability, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that the input should be Booking.com URLs obtained from search results, implying usage after a search. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by stating that results are scored and ranked by how well they match criteria, and it enumerates the breadth of filter categories. It doesn't explicitly mention read-only behavior or output format, but 'search' implies a non-mutating operation and the ranking statement clarifies the result behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet-style category list is useful for navigating an 83-parameter schema, though it is somewhat long. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the content is not redundant with the schema.

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?

Given the high schema complexity and no output schema, the description provides a strong overview of capabilities and result ranking. It does not explicitly mention required parameters or default limits, but the schema covers those. The absence of a clear statement about return shape is a minor gap, but overall the description is adequate for an agent to select and use the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's category list loosely maps to the parameters (e.g., amenities, room features, policies) but does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. It adds no value in clarifying individual parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool searches for hotels with comprehensive filtering, which is a specific action on a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_hotels', which likely performs a similar function, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish itself.

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 phrase 'comprehensive filtering options' implies usage when many filtering criteria are needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. 'search_hotels' or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and specifies the response content, but does not disclose error handling, prerequisites, or potential side effects. For a simple getter, the main behavioral traits (read-only, output coverage) are adequately conveyed.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return content. It lacks usage guidance and doesn't mention the URL prerequisite, but the schema fills that gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple read tool.

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% with the parameter 'url' documented as 'Booking.com URL for the hotel'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't even reference the URL parameter, so no additional value is provided.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific hotel', listing specific content types (amenity list, description, photos). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_hotels (searching) and get_reviews (reviews only).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires a hotel URL or that it is intended for known specific hotels, leaving the agent without explicit context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool shows (nightly prices, lowest/highest dates, average pricing), which covers the output behavior. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, error conditions, or dependencies beyond the schema, missing an opportunity to provide richer context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, what it shows, and target user. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return value by mentioning nightly prices, lowest/highest dates, and average pricing. It is reasonably complete for a read-only price lookup tool, though it does not discuss edge cases or error handling, which prevents a perfect score.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only implies the relevance of 'multiple dates' to the startDate and nights parameters. The schema already documents each parameter clearly, so the description adds marginal value.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get prices for a hotel across multiple dates.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on price comparison across dates and deriving insights like lowest/highest dates and averages, which is distinct from availability checks or hotel 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for flexible travelers looking for the best deal.' This implies the tool is for date-flexible price comparison rather than single-date checking. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (overall rating, breakdown, individual reviews with comments and reviewer info) but does not mention potential behaviors like default limit, sorting defaults, pagination, or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists return details. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource and contains zero fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description explains return values in good detail. It covers the essential behavior for a list/review tool, though it lacks notes on pagination or error handling. Given the moderate complexity, it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including defaults and enums. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get guest reviews for a specific hotel' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_hotel_details by focusing exclusively on reviews and detailing the return content, including rating breakdown and individual review details.

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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool: when you need guest reviews for a specific hotel, and the required hotelUrl parameter signals that you must already have a hotel URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the use case clear.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the key constraint 'without filters', which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it omits any details about output format, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some gaps for a search tool.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the essential purpose and usage advice. There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. Lacks deeper behavioral details but is sufficient for a basic search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage for destination, checkIn, checkOut, rooms, and guests. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states it is a 'basic hotel search without filters', which specifies the tool's function and scope. It distinguishes from sibling find_hotels by explicitly noting the lack of filters.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use find_hotels for filtered searches' directly names the alternative tool for filtered use cases, telling the agent when to choose this tool.

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