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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value beyond that: a hard 100 km radius cap and the rule against treating backend-flagged-unbookable results as confirmed. That last constraint is a meaningful behavioral disclosure not present in the schema or annotations.

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, purpose first, then the range limit, then the safety caveat. No filler, though the caveat could be phrased as a usage rule more directly.

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?

Output schema and annotations relieve some burden, but for a 7-parameter search tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover the remaining parameters and clarify the boundary with verify_property_availability. It's adequate but incomplete.

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 0% across 7 parameters. The description explains zone, dates, guests, and the 100 km maximum for rangeKm, but leaves adults defaults, childrenAges, and language entirely undocumented. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 concrete verb and resource (search published available properties) plus the three qualifying dimensions: zone, dates, guests. It's clearly distinguishable from verify_property_availability, but it doesn't explicitly name that distinction in the text.

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?

Usage is only implied: search with zone/dates/guests. The caution about not presenting unbookable results as confirmed is a useful constraint but not a when-to-use vs alternative rule. There is no guidance on preferring get_property/verify_property_availability for follow-up checks.

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