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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope disclosure — the data is 'undated', meaning it is static property facts rather than time-sensitive availability — which prevents the agent from expecting pricing or availability.

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 sentences, no filler. The positive scope (what is returned) comes first and the exclusion clause second, which is the correct front-loading for a lookup tool with a nearby offers sibling.

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 structure need not be described, yet the description still gives a useful content inventory. The main gap is the unexplained 'currency' parameter, which no structured field documents given 0% schema coverage.

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 carries the full parameter burden, and it fails: the 'currency' parameter (with a default of USD) is never explained, and its purpose is only hinted at by saying prices are *not* returned, which is actively confusing. propertyId is gestured at only as 'one identified RoomLast property ID' with no format or sourcing guidance.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns undated facts for one identified RoomLast property ID') and enumerates the exact content returned (address, description, photos, amenities, check-in/checkout times, star rating, guest reviews). It is clearly distinguishable from get_accommodation_offers, which the exclusion clause implicitly names.

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 second sentence explicitly excludes availability, room offers, prices, breakfast, and cancellation terms, which tells the agent when to route elsewhere — notably to the offers sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative tool directly, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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