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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry the rest. It adds the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/tasks) and the mutation model, but says nothing about auth requirements, side effects (notifications to assignee/supervisor), or whether referenced ids must pre-exist. Useful but not rich behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then the scope. It is efficient, though the trailing field enumeration is partly redundant with the 100%-documented schema.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual shape of a task but omits what the call returns (e.g. the created task id needed for subsequent hostaway_update_task calls) and any permission/side-effect context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across all 15 parameters, so the schema already documents every field including enums and formats. The description only paraphrases those same fields ('time window, category and cost') without adding format, defaults, or validation semantics 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?

States the specific verb (create) and resource (operational task), then enumerates the domain scope with concrete examples ('cleaning after a checkout', 'maintenance job') and the optional relationships/facets (listing, reservation, assignee, time window, category, cost). An agent can immediately distinguish this from hostaway_list_tasks and hostaway_update_task.

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 examples ('cleaning after a checkout or a maintenance job') give clear context for when this tool applies, and the optionality of listing/reservation linkage is stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite note (e.g. listing/reservation must already exist), which keeps it below a 5.

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