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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: host labels are untrusted data (prompt-injection defense), field ids/options are authoritative, and an enquiry does not create a booking or confirm availability. The remaining content is mostly agent output-style policy rather than tool behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the bulk of the ~200-word text is generic output-formatting policy (sentence counts, word limits, what not to narrate) that is only loosely tied to selecting or invoking this specific tool, making it padded rather than tight.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, boundaries, and security concerns well. The main gap is the total absence of parameter guidance, which is partially excused by the schema's enum/defaults.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions the required 'id' or the 'locale' enum. The phrase 'a published property's ... questions' weakly implies id is a property identifier, but locale is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read a published property's current host-customised enquiry questions and revision.' It also implicitly separates itself from prepare_enquiry/submit_enquiry by stating that inspecting questions does not authorise preparing or sending an enquiry. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use (inspect the enquiry form/questions) and a strong when-not boundary ('a request to inspect questions does not authorise preparing or sending an enquiry or collecting contact details'). It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools (prepare_enquiry, submit_enquiry), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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