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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context on top: that results are a paginated list and which fields come back (month/origin/nights). It stops short of stating ordering or what happens when no filters are supplied.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the resource, then pagination behavior, then the return fields. No filler sentences; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's field list is doing necessary work, and all six parameters are documented in the schema. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on selecting this dataset versus the by-country/by-county variants.

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 the parameters are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description restates origin values that the schema already gives, and notably refers to 'next_cursor' while the parameter itself is named 'cursor', which adds a small terminology mismatch rather than new meaning.

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 resource ('Guest nights per month') and its return shape, so the agent knows this is a monthly guest-night dataset. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close siblings guest_nights_by_county and guest_nights_by_country, leaving the agent to infer the aggregation difference from the name alone.

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 only usage information is the pagination instruction ('pass next_cursor to get the next page'). There is no statement of when to choose this tool over guest_nights_by_county/by_country, nor any note that all filters are optional.

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