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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is a search link generator, not a booking handler, and it redirects to the original platform. This clarifies the tool's side effects (none) and its role in the flow.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope clarification following immediately. There is no redundant 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, one enum, and an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior and its limitations. It covers what the link is, what it isn't, and the fact that bookings are not handled. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and both parameters (stay_id, platform) have descriptions. The description mentions the link is built from property name and address, which hints at how the parameters are used, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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 the tool creates a link to the original booking page, and explicitly distinguishes it from a specific room reservation page. It uses a specific verb (creates) and resource (link), making its purpose unambiguous even without seeing the 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?

The description explains that the server does not process bookings and only redirects users to the original platform. It also notes that a specific room booking page requires an inventory adapter, setting an exclusion boundary. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer this over stay_search or stay_detail.

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