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

Annotations cover safety, mutation, and idempotency, while the description adds the passed-activity prerequisite, return contents, and that repeating the same stay_id is safe. No auth or error behavior, but it exceeds annotation-only disclosure.

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 action, then prerequisite, outputs, and idempotency. Two sentences are appropriately sized, though the first sentence is dense with multiple clauses.

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?

Output schema exists, so return details are not strictly needed, but the description supplies prerequisite and idempotency context. It remains silent on auth/errors and stay_id provenance, leaving minor gaps for a one-parameter mutation.

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% and the description only repeats 'stay_id (UUID)' from the schema. It adds no meaning about what the stay_id identifies, where to get it, or any constraints, so it does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb 'complete check-out' plus resource and prerequisite. It clearly distinguishes from sibling resort_check_in and states outcomes (rewards, passport_url, owner_message).

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 prerequisite: 'after at least one passed activity.' It does not name when-not-to-use or alternatives like resort_check_in, but the context is clear enough.

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