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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that it 'returns normalized listings with embedded prices when dates are supplied,' which clarifies output conditions and result format—details not covered by annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Discover properties') and packs essential specifics (platforms, filters, output condition) without waste. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and readable.

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?

Despite having 18 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but omits important details like pagination (cursor), sorting, currency, and the nature of normalized listings. It mentions the return of normalized listings with embedded prices when dates are supplied, which is helpful, but it is not complete enough to fully understand the tool's behavior in all cases. For a tool of this complexity, more context (e.g., result structure, error conditions) would be expected.

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 61%, so the description carries some burden for parameter meaning. It groups parameters into categories (location, dates, occupancy, filters) and notes that prices are returned 'when dates are supplied,' which adds context for checkIn/checkOut. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameter ranges, formats, or dependencies beyond what schema already provides. Overall, it adds moderate value but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 a specific action ('Discover properties') with a clear resource (properties across Vrbo, Booking, Airbnb, and Google Hotels) and scope (by location, dates, occupancy, and filters). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_listing (which retrieves a specific listing) or compare_prices (which compares prices) by focusing on multi-platform search and normalized results.

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 implies usage: use this tool to search for accommodations across multiple platforms. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., 'for a specific listing, use get_listing'). The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance or direct comparison with siblings.

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