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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the payload contains personal guest data and enumerates what comes back (status, times, name, phone, email, door codes). Pagination/result-size behavior is still undisclosed.

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: scope first, returned fields second, endpoint last. No filler, and the PII caution is stated where it matters.

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, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the PII flag prepares the agent for sensitive data. The remaining gap is result volume/pagination, which matters for a per-property list that could be long.

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%, including a documented keyid enum with partner-vs-Operto id semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about property_id or keyid beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope ('reservations of one property') and an enumeration of returned fields, plus the underlying endpoint. It is clearly distinct from operto_get_reservation by being a property-scoped list, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Scope ('of one property') implies the property_id requirement and the PII warning hints at handling care, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus operto_get_reservation or operto_list_properties, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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