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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what comes back — nightly price estimates, minimum-stay rules and booking links — which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting that prices are estimates only or how availability conflicts are handled.

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 sentences, no filler. The availability constraint and guest-fit condition lead, with the return contents second — the right order for an agent deciding whether to call.

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 13-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essential search semantics and sketches the response shape. Minor gaps remain: no mention of the default sort/limit behavior or that minimum-stay rules can exclude properties that are otherwise free.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine semantic the schema does not state: availability must hold for every night in the range, and the party must fit. That clarifies how checkIn/checkOut and the guest-count parameters are combined. It adds nothing about limit, sort, or bedroom 'exactly vs 6+', which the schema already handles.

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 and resource — finding properties available across a date range for a given party size — which is more precise than a generic 'search'. It does not name or differentiate from siblings such as list_properties or get_property_details, so an agent must infer that this is the availability-aware search rather than a plain catalog listing.

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 only implied: the requirement that checkIn and checkOut be supplied signals this is the date-bounded search, which suggests when to prefer it over browsing tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. 'use get_quote for a firm price', 'use list_properties to browse without dates').

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