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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that no dates are involved, enumerates the kinds of details returned, and explains the semantic handling of roomQuery vs treating a name as another property. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource while enumerating content categories; the second delivers a crucial usage caveat. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what is returned, the date-free nature, and the roomQuery disambiguation rule. It does not explain how to obtain a propertyToken or how the response is structured, but the content list and sibling tool ecosystem (e.g., search_property_catalog) make those gaps acceptable. Overall, the description is sufficient for correct invocation in most 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: roomQuery has a schema description, but propertyToken has none. The description adds meaningful meaning to roomQuery with the rule about passing traveler-provided room names there first, which goes beyond the schema. propertyToken remains implicitly defined by the tool name and first sentence, but this is a minor gap given the token naming convention evident in sibling tools.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('property and room details'), followed by a concrete list of content categories (amenities, direct-booking benefits, policies, Events & Weddings, room profiles, images, links). The phrase 'date-free' clearly distinguishes this from availability-oriented sibling tools such as search_property_availability, and the tool name itself separates it from get_building_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 provides clear context: use this when you need non-date-dependent property and room details, and it gives a specific conditional rule ('When the traveler names a room or unit, pass that wording as roomQuery before treating it as another property'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the 'date-free' qualifier and roomQuery instruction establish practical usage boundaries.

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