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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it 'rechecks publication' and warns that prices and availability live on the host website, so the agent won't expect pricing here.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then mechanics, then a constraint. Four tight sentences, though the 'do not repeat in prose' instruction reads as prompt guidance rather than tool semantics.

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, return values needn't be described, and the description covers when-to-use, what renders, and the publication recheck. The undocumented locale parameter is the only notable gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains ids as 'one to six matching IDs' from search_properties, matching the 1-6 bounds, but adds nothing about the locale enum (en/es). Partial compensation only.

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 (show/render) and resource (homes/IDs already found by search_properties) as cards with Details and host booking links. An agent can distinguish this from search_properties (which finds them) and get_property (singular) 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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use this when the traveler wants photos or a comparison of homes already found by search_properties,' which names the upstream sibling and the condition selecting this tool. It also adds a constraint ('Do not repeat the full cards in prose'), but gives no explicit when-not or alternative to get_property.

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