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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries the rest of the burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotation: changes are 'pushed to every connected channel', warning the agent of external propagation effects. It also explains blocking semantics, though it omits permission requirements and rate-limit behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences covering behavior, parameter choice, and the underlying endpoint. Little waste; the endpoint reference is useful for traceability. Dense but not bloated.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key single-vs-multi-unit decision, and channel-propagation behavior, which is sufficient to invoke correctly. It stops short of detailing side effects on existing calendar entries or error conditions, leaving minor 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds real meaning beyond the schema: the multi-unit rule (desiredUnitsToSell instead of isAvailable, 0 blocks) and the isAvailable=false blocking semantics are interpretive guidance the schema fields alone do not convey.

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 ('Change availability and/or pricing for a date range on one listing') with enough scope detail to separate it from siblings like hostaway_get_calendar or hostaway_update_reservation. The enumeration of editable facets (block, price, min/max stay, closed-to-arrival/departure, note) makes the boundary of the operation clear.

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?

Provides conditional guidance for choosing between parameters: 'For multi-unit listings set desiredUnitsToSell instead of isAvailable (0 blocks).' This tells the agent which field to pick based on listing type. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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