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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is public, uses canonical sources, is checked against current property rules and fees, and does not itself approve dogs or confirm bookings.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it first states what content is provided, then summarizes coverage, then clarifies the non-booking boundary. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 simple read-only information lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough to guide use. It covers scope, language options, sources, freshness, and the key limitation that it does not perform approvals or booking actions.

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?

There is one optional language parameter, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists the supported languages in natural language, which helps interpret the enum, but it does not state the parameter name, default behavior, or what happens if the parameter is omitted.

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 identifies a specific resource: public QUALIDOG label and dog-stay FAQ content, including the topics it covers. It is clearly dog-stay-specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_stay_rules or get_property_information.

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 title and description give a clear use context: planning a stay with a dog and answering dog-specific stay questions. It also states a useful boundary — it never approves a dog or confirms a booking — though it does not explicitly name which sibling tool to use for booking or approval.

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