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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the quota cost of 250 requests/day and 5/minute, plus the underlying endpoint. It does not mention caching or whether the list is static, which would be a natural next detail.

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 what is returned, then the hard rate limit, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 correctly compensates by describing the returned fields and giving example values, and it documents cost constraints for a quota-limited API. The only gap is a missing explicit contrast with hotelrunner_list_connected_channels, which sits right next to it among siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully explains the semantics of the returned code field and where that value is consumed elsewhere, but there is no parameter surface to add meaning to.

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 (list all sales channels HotelRunner supports) and describes the content of the result: name and code, with concrete examples (bookingcom, expedia, hrs, online). An agent immediately knows this is a static reference/enumeration endpoint, not a property-specific connection listing.

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?

Explicitly says the returned code is the value that hotelrunner_update_room_calendar expects in channel_codes, which gives a clear downstream use case and selects it over the sibling update tool. It stops short of naming hotelrunner_list_connected_channels as the alternative for a property's actual connected channels, leaving that distinction to inference.

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