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

Annotations only say this is a non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the reply is asynchronous ('the answer arrives later'), the agent must tell the guest it will follow up, and guest contact details must be excluded from the payload. These are operational facts the agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the async/follow-up behavior, then the privacy constraint, with the endpoint mapping last. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.

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?

For a two-parameter async write with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: when to use it, that no answer comes back immediately, and what not to send. It could still say more about the required property_id and the length limit, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implicitly indicates the 'question' content (a question, no contact details) and says nothing about property_id semantics, the 500-character cap, or expected formats. Two undocumented parameters leave real gaps.

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 (send) and resource (a question to the host) and frames it as an escalation path: only for questions the property record and FAQ don't answer. That scope clause also distinguishes it from the sibling send_message tool, which handles ordinary guest messaging.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('questions the property record and FAQ don't answer') and a privacy caveat about contact details. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces (send_message) or stating when-not to escalate to the host, so an agent must infer that boundary.

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