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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about the nature of the records (owner-created blocks, no guest or price fields), but says nothing about pagination, default scope when apartment_id is omitted, or result volume.

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 short clauses, zero filler, and the defining scope (what the records are) is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover behavior. The one remaining gap is the default behavior when the optional apartment_id is not supplied (all apartments vs. none), which the agent must infer.

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 single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Restrict to one apartment. Must belong to this account.'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about apartment_id semantics or what happens when it is omitted.

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?

The description names a specific resource ('owner-created blocked date ranges') and gives concrete examples (maintenance, personal use), making the verb 'list' from the title unambiguous. It also distinguishes the resource from reservations, which separates it from the sibling list_reservations, though it does not name 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?

The negative framing 'Not reservations — no guest, no price' implicitly tells the agent when this tool is the right one (owner blocks vs. guest bookings), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like get_availability, and no prerequisites.

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