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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the governing rule windows, the Terms revision date (Feb 5, 2026) which signals rule versioning, the returned fields, and a 'Not legal advice' disclaimer. It does not contradict the 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?

Two dense sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded, followed by outputs and a disclaimer. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so ('dates, days left, status, and an evidence checklist'). Combined with annotation-covered safety and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so tz, today, checkout, and reservation are already documented in the schema; the description only echoes the checkout-date input. No syntax, default, or interaction details are added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 domain action: computing Airbnb Host Damage Protection deadlines from a checkout date, with the concrete rule set (14-day guest payment, 30-day Airbnb filing). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like checkout_check or lead_window, which concern checkout/lead mechanics rather than claim deadlines.

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 by the 'from a checkout date' framing and the explicit output list, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus checkout_check or lead_window, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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