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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses key behavior: prices are in local currency and never converted, data_as_of reflects that city's scrape date, and uncovered cities are refused with the full covered-city list rather than returning empty results. These are substantive operational details not captured by readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains information-dense throughout. It is somewhat long and packed into a single paragraph, but nearly every detail is useful for correct invocation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden, and it does so thoroughly: totals, median price with currency caveat, room-type breakdown, top neighbourhood breakdown, and data_as_of. It also explains refusal behavior for uncovered cities.

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 100% and the single city parameter is already documented with examples. The description reinforces name-or-slug input and examples but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("city-wide short-term rental summary for one city") and clearly distinguishes this summary from listing-level or city-browsing siblings. It also names the source, Inside Airbnb, and the exact scope of the returned summary.

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?

It gives explicit input guidance (city name or slug) and an important fallback: uncovered cities are refused by name and the user should call list_str_cities. It does not explicitly contrast with str_listings, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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