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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it clarifies that booking and payment happen on the linked page, not through this tool, and it discloses the no-dates fallback behavior. It does not describe the return shape (URL vs. object), but that is a minor gap.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the fallback case follows immediately.

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 five-parameter, read-only link tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side-effect boundary, and the optional-date fallback. Only the return format (a URL string) is left implicit.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes arrival/departure/guests and clarifies that dates are optional (falling back to the plain listing page), which is marginal added value — the 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?

States a specific resource and output ('Link to a listing page with arrival, departure and guests already chosen') and clarifies the guest completes payment on that page, so the agent knows this is a link generator, not a booking tool. It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate against, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Implied usage is clear: call it when you want a prefilled booking URL. The 'Without dates, the plain listing page' clause hints at the get_listing overlap, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or naming of get_quote/search_listings as alternatives.

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