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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup and defines the fixed scope (the Lilla Älva property), but it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, requires no parameters, or describe the response shape. This is acceptable but leaves some behavioral traits unstated.

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?

The entire description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the most important content categories and includes the property name and location. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, static property-information tool, the description covers all the main content areas an agent would need to decide to call it. Because there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response format or read-only nature would make it fully complete, but the current description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead focuses on what the tool returns; no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 uses specific, informative nouns to enumerate exactly what the tool returns—description, amenities, house rules, booking flow, and contact details—for a named property (Lilla Älva). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which handle availability, quotes, and booking submission.

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 listed content (house rules, amenities, contact details, booking flow) makes it clear when an agent should call this tool: whenever the user needs property-level information before or instead of checking availability, requesting a quote, or submitting a booking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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