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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the returned attributes (size, typical price) and pre-empts a common false expectation by stating availability is not checked. Ordering, result count, and pagination are unstated.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the returned-content summary is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 usefully names what comes back and flags the missing availability dimension, which is the main ambiguity for a listing tool. It is slightly thin on whether results are capped or ordered, but an agent has enough to call 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 coverage is 100% and both filters (minGuests, propertyType with an enum) are fully documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions neither filter and adds no semantics about how they combine or what happens when omitted.

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?

Names the resource (every property at Sumberkima Hill) and the payload fields returned (size, typical price), which is more than a tautology of the title. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (search_stays, get_property_details), so an agent still infers the boundary, keeping it below a 5.

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?

'Does not check availability for dates' is an explicit exclusion that signals when-not to use this tool, which is stronger than bare context. However, it never names the alternative (search_stays appears to be the availability-aware sibling), so the routing is left half-explicit.

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