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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond that: it retrieves the host's own Q&A entries and ranks them by relevance ('most relevant') rather than returning exact matches. This helps set expectations for fuzzy/factual lookup behavior.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, and the second earns its place by providing usage 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one required parameter, an optional scoping parameter, and an output schema, the description covers the use case, source of data, and selection guidance. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 50%: listing_id is documented in the schema, while question is not. The description compensates by clarifying what a question should contain ('factual question about the stay, the house, or the host's services'), but it does not add anything about listing_id beyond the schema's optional-scope wording.

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 ('Retrieve') and a concrete resource ('the host's own Q&A entries'), and it specifies the target questions (factual questions about the stay, the house, or the host's services). This scope is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as get_listing_details or get_listing_policies, even without naming them.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use signal: 'Prefer this over guessing for any host-specific question.' It does not enumerate exclusions or name alternative tools, but the guidance is enough to route an agent toward this tool for host-specific factual questions.

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