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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses that NEW does not confirm a booking or take payment, that blocks are later removable in Hostfully, that inquiries flow through the pipeline, and that dates are property-local. It does not fully explain the destructiveHint flag or what the create returns, but the side-effect profile is well 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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences that each carry information – mode semantics first, then side effects, then date locality, then endpoint. Dense but no filler; slightly heavier than strictly necessary 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 create tool with no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly and understand consequences. It omits what the response contains (e.g. the created lead identifier), which matters given siblings get_lead/update_lead, but otherwise complete.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it maps each status value to a distinct behavior and clarifies that dates are local to the property. This ties the status enum to downstream consequences the schema alone only sketches.

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 ('Create a lead at one property') and then splits the operation into its two distinct behaviors (BLOCKED vs NEW). An agent can distinguish this from hostfully_update_lead and hostfully_search_leads 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?

Clearly explains the two modes and their consequences – blocks put an owner/maintenance block on the calendar, inquiries enter the normal pipeline without confirming a booking or taking payment. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over a sibling (e.g. create_job or update_lead), so no explicit alternative routing.

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