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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing exactly which data will be returned (amenities, capacity, price in CLP, location, canonical URL), making the tool's behavior more transparent without contradicting 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?

A single well-structured sentence with no filler. The main action and key data points are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (the fields listed). It lacks an output schema, but the enumerated fields provide a good mental model. It could have mentioned error behavior for an invalid slug, but that is not essential for basic usage.

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 a description for 'slug' ('Accommodation slug.'). The tool description does not add deeper meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full detail for a Tuki accommodation'), and enumerates concrete fields (amenities, capacity, price, location, URL). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools like get_car_detail and get_event_detail.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need full details for a specific accommodation identified by slug. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as saying 'use search_accommodations to find options first.'

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