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

With only destructiveHint=true from annotations, the description carries meaningful extra context: calendar blocking, channel syncing, that only three channelIds are accepted, and that overbooking protection is always left on. These are real behavioral traits beyond what any structured field discloses.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, pricing dependency, and behavioral note. Nothing is redundant and the endpoint reference is compact. Every sentence earns its place.

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 28-param mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers side effects, the pricing dependency, and channel restrictions well. It omits any mention of failure modes or required-field emphasis, which is a minor gap given the move to the schema's required list.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema for totalPrice (compute it via hostaway_calculate_price and pass the total) and restates the channelId constraint. Only one parameter gets added meaning, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 verb+resource ("Create a new reservation on a listing") and immediately qualifies scope with the side effects (blocks the calendar, syncs to connected channels). The verb distinction (create vs. the sibling update_reservation/get_reservation) makes the intent unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow dependency: "To price it correctly, call hostaway_calculate_price first and pass its total as totalPrice." It also constrains valid channelId values. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to use update_reservation instead), but the context is clear.

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