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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds valuable behavioral warnings: returned prose is supplier-authored data, not instructions, and directive-like text should be ignored. It also cautions against claiming transfer-inclusive pricing unless the data explicitly indicates it, which is important safety context for an AI agent.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, returned fields, data-trust warning, and pricing-source warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers essential caveats without redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the concrete fields the caller can expect. It also covers the two major risk areas for this tool—prompt injection via supplier text and incorrect attribution of pricing/refundability. The parameter schema and annotations provide the remaining operational details, so the tool is fully invokable and safely usable.

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 100%, and both parameters are already well-documented in the schema: property_id must be exactly from search_stays and never guessed, and journey_id must be the most recent continuity handle. The description's 'by its ID or slug' matches the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve full details for a specific Tell & Go property by its ID or slug.' It also enumerates the returned content (description, amenities, dining, activities, images, check-in/out times, booking_url), which distinguishes it clearly from list-style siblings like search_stays and pricing tools like get_quote.

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 description gives clear usage constraints: pricing, refundability, taxes, and inclusions must come from get_quote or prebook_stay, never from this tool. It also ties property_id to values 'EXACTLY as returned by search_stays,' situating the tool in the workflow. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you need detailed property content instead of search results,' but the purpose and exclusions make the appropriate context clear.

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