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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the proposal expires, the host is not notified, the approval token is private and bound to the exact proposal. This aligns with idempotentHint=true rather than contradicting it.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its exclusion, then the guest-approval and token rules. No filler; every sentence adds operational guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully flags that the review, property, and chosen contact details must be presented. Remaining gap is the undefined id/revision/locale parameters, which neither schema nor description clarify.

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% across 5 required parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains idempotencyKey semantics well (fresh UUID per proposal, reused for retries) and implies answers are validated against the host form, but leaves id, revision, and locale undocumented.

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 ('Validate answers against the current host form and prepare an expiring proposal') and immediately distinguishes itself from the submit step by declaring 'This does not submit an enquiry or notify the host.' An agent can differentiate this from submit_enquiry without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear workflow context (present the returned review and contact details, then ask for explicit approval) and the idempotency-key policy for retries. It does not name submit_enquiry as the follow-up alternative explicitly, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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