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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value by describing the return shape (normalized listings across platforms) and the conditional price embedding when dates are given, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the primary action comes first and the return-shape qualifier follows after the semicolon.

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 17-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the search dimensions and explicitly states what comes back, closing the biggest gap. What remains missing is sibling routing and any note that results are per-platform and paginated.

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?

At 65% schema description coverage across 17 parameters, the schema carries most of the semantics (defaults, enum values, date formats, child-age coupling). The description only names the high-level filter dimensions (location, dates, occupancy, filters) without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Discover) and resource (properties/stays) plus the four upstream platforms it federates over, which is concrete and readable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like compare_prices, check_availability, or get_listing, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over the six sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only conditional hint is that prices appear when dates are supplied, which is behavioral rather than a usage rule.

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