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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds key behavioral context by stating 'This list intentionally has no prices, availability or bookability,' preventing misuse. It doesn't delve into pagination mechanics, but schema covers page/limit, so this is sufficient.

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 description is three concise sentences: the first states the purpose and filters, the second clarifies a critical limitation, and the third directs to sibling tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully covers what a user needs to know: what the list contains, what it intentionally omits, and how to obtain pricing/availability and detail. It contextualizes the tool among nine siblings and accounts for all 5 optional parameters via schema, making it complete for its scope.

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%, with each parameter (page, limit, skiAreaId, districtId, skiResortId) already documented, including source tool references like list_ski_areas. The description's mention of 'filtered by ski area, ski resort or district ids' adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List public accommodations for catalogue discovery, optionally filtered by ski area, ski resort or district ids'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting the absence of prices, availability, and bookability, and by pointing to search_apartments and get_accommodation_detail for those needs.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use search_apartments with weekId for price and availability comparison, and get_accommodation_detail after a result for accommodation context.' It also mentions the optional filters derived from destination tools, giving clear usage context.

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