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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world scope, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-shape burden is largely carried elsewhere. The description adds useful substance by naming the returned fields (description, features, photo URLs, price-from), but says nothing about missing-slug behavior or language fallback.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs the verb, the target resource and the returned content with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is essentially complete, with only minor omissions around slug acquisition and language fallback behavior.

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% and both parameters (slug, lang enum) are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description touches the slug indirectly via 'één accommodatietype' but adds no semantics about slug format or the lang default beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (ophalen) tied to a specific resource (één accommodatietype) and enumerates the payload: volledige beschrijving, kenmerken, foto-URLs en prijs-vanaf. This clearly separates it from the sibling availability and booking-link tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to fetch detail for a single accommodation type, while siblings handle availability and booking links. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no stated prerequisite (e.g. that a valid slug must be obtained first), and no named alternative.

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