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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: blocking keeps the property in search, it 'reaches no one' (i.e., no guest-facing cancellation), unblock_dates reverses it, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. That covers reversibility and auth prerequisites, though return/confirmation behavior is not described.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and scope, and every sentence carries weight (effect, search visibility, reversibility, auth). The middle sentence 'It reaches no one and unblock_dates undoes it, so it runs without asking' is slightly stacked and could be tightened.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, search impact, and auth requirements adequately. It does not state anything about confirmation/return payloads or what the blocked range looks like afterward, a minor gap against a fully-annotated schema.

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%, with each of the five params documented (from/to nights, reason, site_id default all sites, listing_id from list_listings). The description's 'a site or a whole listing' adds a little framing for site_id but no syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is right.

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+resource ('Make a site or a whole listing unavailable for a date range') and immediately scopes it: turns off availability for the nights in the range, equivalent to Bulk Edit. It also names the counter-tool (unblock_dates), so an agent can distinguish it from hipcamp_unblock_dates and hipcamp_update_pricing without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use it (blocking specific nights, either per-site or whole listing) and names unblock_dates as the reversal path. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' rule against other sibling tools, but the same-as-Bulk-Edit framing plus the undo pointer is stronger than implied guidance.

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