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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the detail fields returned (description, facilities, check-in/check-out times, parking, pets, children, policies, review summary, nearby places), which is especially useful given there is no output schema. 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?

One well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Full detail for one property by slug') and then lists the included details in a compact enumeration. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of return contents and the slug provenance. It doesn't mention error behavior for invalid slugs, but given the simplicity and the annotations, the definition is largely sufficient.

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 100% – the only parameter 'slug' is fully documented with type, length constraints, and an example. The description simply repeats 'by slug' without adding new meaning, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('one property'), and a precise retrieval key ('by slug'). The phrase 'Full detail for one property' differentiates it from search_stays, which is a search tool, and price_stay, which focuses on pricing. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

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 implies usage context: when you need full details of a single property after obtaining its slug. The schema parameter description reinforces this by saying 'The property slug from search_stays', which clearly indicates a preceding search_stays call. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear.

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