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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Since no output schema exists, the description's enumeration of returned content (description, coordinates, capacity, rating, feature codes, gallery, base price, url) is genuinely load-bearing behavioral information the agent cannot get elsewhere.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core purpose stated first and the field list following. The enumeration is long but each item earns its place because there is no output schema to carry that information; no filler or restated title.

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 compensates well by listing the response fields and the meaning of url and localization. Remaining gaps are modest: no note on behavior for an unknown/invalid id and no explicit relationship to get_accommodation_availability for date-specific data.

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. The description goes beyond it by tying the locale parameter to concrete output effects — 'Full localized detail' and the url being 'the listing page on the website of the locale' — clarifying what localization actually changes beyond the schema's own wording.

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 names a specific resource and scope ('Full localized detail of one accommodation') and enumerates exactly what a single-record fetch returns, which separates it from the plural search_accommodations and the availability sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative mentioned anywhere in the description. The only routing hint is indirect — the schema says the id comes 'from search results', implying this is a detail call made after a search, but the description itself provides no guidance.

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