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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's extra job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the shape of what comes back (property attributes) and the API endpoint (GET /v1/listings). It does not contradict the annotation and adds real value beyond it, though it says nothing about pagination behavior or limits for large portfolios.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and returned fields first, filter/dimension capabilities second, API endpoint last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded; slightly dense in the middle sentence but every clause 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 12-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the returned fields and the filter surface. The main gap is pagination (limit/offset) and result-ceiling guidance, which the agent only learns from the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description helpfully maps its filter prose onto the parameters (name/city/country/property type/availability dates/guest count/active-archived), but adds no syntax, format, or combined-filter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('List the account's properties (listings)') and even enumerates the fields returned (name, address, capacity, base price, fees, check-in times), which goes well beyond restating the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling hostaway_get_listing, leaving the agent to infer the difference between listing many vs. fetching one.

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 enumerated filters imply when this tool is useful (filtering a portfolio of properties by city, country, availability, guest count, status), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative such as hostaway_get_listing for single-property retrieval. Usage must be inferred from the filter list rather than being stated.

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