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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload is static descriptive content rather than dynamic data, but says nothing about response shape, size, or whether the data is cached/static per language.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the content list is dense but readable. Slightly list-heavy, but every element names a real topic an agent might query.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter info tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide relevance. It could note the language parameter's effect, but the schema already carries that.

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 the single enum parameter (language, default en) is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions the language parameter or what it affects, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific resource (Appartements Amrusch) and enumerates the exact content domains returned: apartment types, inclusions, rules, season dates, location, distances, contact. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like check_availability and send_inquiry, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for static 'about the property' questions rather than availability or booking. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of pairing it with check_availability, and no exclusions.

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