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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond them by enumerating the returned policy domains and noting the language switch, though it does not say whether policy values are static or property-specific, which matters if the catalogue has multiple units.

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?

Front-loaded with WHEN, then WHAT IT RETURNS, then EXAMPLE — a scannable structure with no filler sentences. The one weakness is that it inlines hardcoded policy values (16:00 check-in, 11:00 checkout, 14-day window, 50 € deposit) that duplicate the output schema and will silently go stale if policy changes.

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, yet the description still names the key fields an agent will need to quote. With a single optional enum parameter and full annotation coverage, nothing required to call or interpret this tool 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 the enum is documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The trailing example {"language":"en"} restates the same information without adding format or fallback semantics beyond the schema's 'Defaults to en.'

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 resource (cancellation/deposit/check-in policies) and anchors it to concrete traveller questions, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name or contrast itself with get_property_details or get_quote, so the boundary with siblings is only implicit.

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 'WHEN' clause gives explicit trigger phrasings ('what time can I arrive?', 'is there a deposit?', 'what if I cancel 10 days before?') that map cleanly to invocation. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent must infer that pricing goes to get_quote rather than being told.

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