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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope context by clarifying what is NOT returned ('No live price'), but it says nothing about return format, freshness, or data source beyond the field list.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the resource and field list, then closes with the key exclusion. There is no filler and every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned — and it does enumerate the key fields. It is nearly complete, missing only return structure/detail that would help an agent parse the response.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is required. The description correctly focuses on return content instead. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

Clear verb+resource: retrieves public facts about a specific property (City of Trees House) and enumerates the returned fields (occupancy, bedrooms, bathrooms, pets, stay bounds, booking links). It is distinguishable from check_availability and get_quote, though the mention of 'booking links' overlaps with the get_booking_link sibling, creating minor ambiguity.

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 phrase 'No live price' implies this tool should not be used for pricing (use get_quote instead), which is weak implied routing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the relationship between this and check_availability/get_booking_link/get_quote.

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