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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool only checks and prepares a link, that the traveller confirms and pays externally, that the price includes cleaning, and that card details must not be collected in chat. It omits failure behavior (what happens when dates are not free) and any rate-limit or error context.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the essential agent instruction about the booking link and card details. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned (total price, cancellation policy, booking link). It leaves the 'slug' input and the locale parameter unexplained, which is the main remaining gap.

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 60%, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions 'dates and guests' generically but never defines the required 'slug' (the stay identifier is only implied by 'a stay') and never mentions the 'locale' parameter at all. It adds little meaning beyond what the partially-documented schema already provides.

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 and resource (check availability, return price/policy/booking link) and names the concrete outputs, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_availability, which appears to also check free dates, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 gives strong post-call workflow guidance ('give the link to the traveller', 'never ask for card details'), but never says when to choose this over get_availability, get_stay, or search_stays. Usage is implied by the booking-link framing but no explicit selection criteria are given.

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