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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false). The description adds material behavior the annotations cannot convey: strict data-minimization rules ('Never send conversation text, contacts or URLs'), the accepted input envelope, and a non-booking disclaimer that bounds the side effect.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The scope restriction is front-loaded, and the two trailing sentences each carry a distinct safety constraint (allowed payload vs. forbidden content).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers all four required parameters plus the privacy guardrails. The only gap is retry/idempotency behavior, which matters because annotations mark the call non-idempotent, but this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does map all four required fields to meaning: a 'public property ID', a 'temporary random session UUID', 'event type' and 'language'. It adds the session-UUID randomness expectation that the schema's format alone does not explain, though it does not restate the enum values (which the schema does supply).

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+resource ('record a property view or successful outbound host-link action') and narrows it to 'the property-card UI only'. This cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings (get_property, search_properties, render_properties), which an agent can distinguish without opening any 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 context gate ('For the property-card UI only') and an explicit exclusion ('This does not book a stay'), which prevents misuse as a booking or general-analytics call. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state what to do when the event is not a card view/host-link click.

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