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

Annotations only assert readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that while adding real context: the return contents (status, type, channel, dates, guest info), the cursor-pagination behavior, and the minimum-filter requirement. It stops short of noting rate limits or whether the default agency scope can be broadened.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the domain definition and filter axes, followed by return contents and the invocation constraint. No filler, and the API endpoint reference is compact.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, and pagination is covered via the cursor parameter. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only edge behavior (e.g., max result windows, behavior when both date ranges and UIDs are combined) is unstated.

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 already 100%, so the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: agency_uid silently falls back to a default, and at least one of agency_uid/property_uid/lead_uids must be supplied. That cross-parameter constraint is genuinely beyond the per-field descriptions.

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 (search) and resource (leads), and explicitly defines the domain term: 'Hostfully's word for bookings, inquiries, booking requests and calendar blocks.' It also enumerates the filter axes (agency, property, UIDs, check-in/out), so an agent can distinguish it from hostfully_get_lead or hostfully_create_lead without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete invocation constraint — 'Give at least one of agency_uid (or the default), property_uid, or lead_uids' — which tells the agent what a valid call looks like. It does not, however, route the agent between alternatives (e.g., when to prefer hostfully_get_lead for a single record), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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