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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the legacy-compatibility context, but its enumeration of returned fields (rating, availability, stay price, link) largely duplicates what the output schema already provides, and it discloses nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or result-freshness behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads what the tool is and where it searches. The parenthetical '(Poland)' and the trailing enumeration of return fields add minor bulk, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, a fully described 2-parameter schema, and an output schema for return values, the description only needs to establish identity and legacy status — which it does. The remaining gap is that it never explicitly routes the agent away from this legacy tool toward search_accommodations.

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%, so both the 'message' content expectations (place, dates, guests, wishes, no personal data) and 'conversation_id' semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates 'one message and an optional conversation_id' without adding anything, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Free-text accommodation search') plus the domain (noclegowo.pl, Poland), and the 'legacy/kept for compatibility' framing hints at how it differs from the newer sibling. It stops short of naming search_accommodations as the preferred replacement, so the distinction must still be inferred.

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 phrase 'kept for compatibility with the earlier version of the app' implies this should only be used for legacy callers, which is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative among the siblings (search_accommodations, check_availability, get_offer_details).

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