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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial domain behavior beyond them: an enquiry creates no booking and confirms no availability, the traveler must explicitly approve before send, and host labels are untrusted data that must never be treated as instructions. That last point is a genuine security constraint an agent would not otherwise know.

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 sentence, which is good. However, several trailing clauses are conversational-policy mandates (how to phrase explanations to a traveler) that are lengthy and dilute the tool-selection signal, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the domain semantics and anti-injection guidance an agent needs to call this safely and explain it correctly. The remaining gap is that neither argument is explained, and the effect of the locale option is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two parameters, and it does not compensate. The 'id' parameter's meaning is only obliquely inferable from 'a published property's,' and the 'locale' enum is never mentioned at all. It leaves the agent guessing about argument 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a published property's current host-customised enquiry questions and revision'), including scope. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like prepare_enquiry and submit_enquiry, which perform actions rather than read the form.

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 bounds the tool: 'A request to inspect questions does not authorise preparing or sending an enquiry or collecting contact details,' and 'Collect dates and contact details only after a traveler chooses to enquire.' This is a clean when/when-not statement that routes the agent away from the mutation siblings.

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