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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: it enumerates side effects that do NOT occur (no account creation, no domain purchase, no Stripe config, no Supabase writes, no site provisioning), states nothing is stored server-side, notes params never change the landing page, and describes what the tool returns (URL, what the host gets, what to prepare).

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 the purpose and audience, then exclusions, then behavior. Every clause carries information, but the description is long and the negative-enumeration sentence ('does not create... buy... configure... write... or provision') is somewhat list-heavy. Still, no filler sentences.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required in prose; the description instead covers the key non-obvious facts (side-effect-free, prefill-only params, sibling handoff logic). With annotations and a full schema present, an agent has everything needed to select and call 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 coverage is 100% and each param already documents purpose and examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds a genuinely useful meta-semantic not in the schema: all params are optional prefill that never change the destination, blanks are omitted, and nothing is persisted server-side. It does not add per-field semantics beyond what the schema gives, so capped at 4.

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 verb (return) and resource (safe onboarding handoff URL) for a specific audience (vacation-rental host), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming hemmabo_search_properties as the guest-facing alternative. An agent can tell this apart from the search tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit triggers ('after explaining the fit or when the host asks to start') and an explicit exclusion/alternative ('if the host is still evaluating... run hemmabo_host_readiness_check first'). Names both the when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else, with the reason (readiness_check already returns the same URL).

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