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

Adds real context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: that a BLOCKED entry can be removed later in Hostfully, that inquiries flow through the normal pipeline without confirming a booking, and that dates are property-local. It does not disclose auth/rate-limit behavior, but for a create tool the side-effect disclosure is substantive.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mode distinction, then side effects, then the endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 nested 8-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers both modes and their consequences adequately; the schema handles parameter detail. It could note whether the created lead is returned or how to retrieve it, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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% and the schema already documents status semantics and property-local dates, so the description largely repeats structured data. It adds no syntax or constraint detail the schema lacks, making 3 (baseline) appropriate.

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 (create) and resource (lead) at one property, and immediately distinguishes the two modes via status BLOCKED vs NEW. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like update_lead or search_leads from the text alone.

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 use cases (owner/maintenance block vs guest inquiry) and clarifies that an inquiry does not confirm a booking or take payment. It lacks an explicit pointer to alternatives (e.g., update_lead for later edits), so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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