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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'optional live price for dates' indicates date-sensitive pricing behavior, and listing the included fields gives insight into the response content beyond what annotations convey.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists content. No filler or repetition; every word contributes.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the return categories and the optional live-price feature. It does not explain all parameters or edge cases, but the schema covers many, and annotations provide safety context. Could be more explicit about when pricing is returned, but overall adequate.

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 56%, and the description adds value by tying date parameters to 'optional live price for dates'. However, it does not explain other undocumented parameters like currency or checkIn/checkOut formats, nor does it clarify the platform enum values. The description partially compensates for schema gaps but not fully.

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 verb and resource: fetch full detail for one listing, listing specific content (amenities, photos, host, ratings). It distinguishes from siblings like get_price (price-focused), get_reviews (reviews-only), and search_stays (search) by emphasizing the comprehensive single-listing scope.

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 implied: use when you need full details for a specific listing, not for searching. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for price only, use get_price'). The context signal of sibling tools helps but the description itself does not provide direct guidance.

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