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

Annotations already certify readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds business-level context beyond that: petCount defaults to 0, minimum-stay rules are not evaluated here, no price is produced, and checking does not hold or reserve the dates. Return shape is still undisclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the default and the two most consequential exclusions. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 should carry the return contract, and it only partially does: it tells the agent what the result is not (no price, no minimum-stay verdict), implying a simple open/closed answer, but never states the response shape. Everything else an agent needs to call it correctly (dates semantics, guest bounds, pet default, no reservation side effect) is present.

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%, and each parameter (guests 1-10, checkIn America/Los_Angeles YYYY-MM-DD, exclusive checkOut, petCount 0-2) is fully documented in the schema. The only param note in the description, the petCount default, merely repeats the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (check) and outcome (whether the house is open) scoped to checkIn, checkOut, and guests. The negations (no price, no minimum-stay check) implicitly separate it from get_quote, but no sibling is named outright, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives usable negative guidance: no minimum-stay validation, no price returned, and dates are not reserved, which tells the agent this is a tentative availability probe rather than a booking/quote step. It stops short of naming get_quote or get_booking_link as the follow-up tools, so the routing is left to inference.

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