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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that content is sourced from the services page and that WiFi credentials are given 'as published', implying they may be missing or stale, but says nothing about empty results or how the fields are structured beyond the output schema.

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?

It is a single sentence with a long parenthetical list that mixes return contents with concrete examples, and 'the full amenities list' overlaps with 'what the space is like'. The intent is front-loaded, but the run-on structure and duplicated coverage cost it.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey scope, and it does so thoroughly across all amenity categories. The main omission is any hint that the language parameter exists or that results may be partial.

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 single optional 'language' parameter is fully documented with its enum and the /es/ path note. The description never mentions language selection, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates exactly what is returned (feature cards, amenities list, parking/cameras/restroom details, softened water, WiFi network and password), which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like get_machines or get_location_hours. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, so differentiation is inferred from content rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated items (parking, restroom, WiFi password) suggest the kinds of questions this answers, and 'from the services page' hints at the source. There is no explicit when-to-use rule, no statement of when to prefer search_faq or get_location_hours instead, and no prerequisites.

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