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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds explicit assurance that it never creates a booking, intention, payment, hold, or customer record. This goes beyond the annotations by naming the specific side effects that are absent.

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 with no filler. The 'Read-only' safety qualifier is front-loaded, and the rest of the description adds concrete behavioral detail without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and annotations covering side-effect safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns conceptually and that no mutation occurs; the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description needs no parameter-level details, and the baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('destinations currently exposed by Voya Homes'). It also distinguishes the tool from its siblings, get_home and search_homes, which focus on homes rather than destinations.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the current list of Voya Homes destinations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the choice to inference.

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