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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no bookings are created.' It adds useful context beyond the annotation: the data is LIVE and from the real booking engine, which clarifies the tool's behavior and data source. No contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first is front-loaded with the action and resource, the second provides the key read-only safety note. No fluff or filler.

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 availability tool, the description covers the core context: what it does, on which property, with real data, and that no bookings are created. It does not describe the response format, but no output schema exists and this is not critical for a demo query. Missing explicit exclusions or date-edge-case details are minor.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage (checkin_date and checkout_date have format hints, but adults and children have no description). The tool description mentions none of the parameters and does not compensate for the gap, leaving an agent to infer meaning of adults/children and date usage.

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 states a specific verb ('query'), a specific resource ('LIVE room availability on the public FrontDesko demo property'), and clarifies it is read-only. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools (commission, PMS comparison, pricing, recommendations, docs), none of which overlap with availability checks.

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 opening phrase 'Call this to query...' explicitly identifies the tool's purpose and context (demo property with real data). However, it does not list alternative tools or specify when not to use it, though no direct availability alternative exists among the siblings.

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