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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: changes are 'pushed to every connected channel' (a cross-system side effect), the isAvailable=false block semantics, and the multi-unit 0-blocks rule. Rate limits or permission requirements are not covered.

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 dense sentences that front-load the effect ('pushed to every connected channel') and end with the underlying endpoint. Efficient, though the field enumeration is packed tightly.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description explains what is modified, the scope of propagation, and the single-vs-multi-unit distinction. Missing only failure/validation behavior, which is minor here.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the mutual exclusivity of isAvailable vs desiredUnitsToSell for multi-unit listings and the blocking semantics of 0/false, which the schema alone doesn't make as explicit.

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 (change availability/pricing for a date range on one listing) and enumerates the exact settable fields. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like hostaway_get_calendar and hostaway_calculate_price.

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 clear context for use and even a conditional branch: multi-unit listings should use desiredUnitsToSell instead of isAvailable. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., don't use for single-date reads), so it stops short of full routing.

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