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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: guest assignments and occupant identities are excluded from the payload, and authentication is required. It stops short of describing ordering guarantees or empty-state 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by exclusions and the auth precondition. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the payload, and it does so by naming the returned fields and explicitly excluding guest/occupant data. It could be more complete about ordering or pagination, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 wedding_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the multi-wedding requirement. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (Lists) plus the resource (selected wedding's accommodation options) and enumerates the returned fields: room descriptions, addresses, property order. This is easily distinguished from sibling list tools like list_my_events or list_my_guests.

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 description states a precondition ('Requires sign-in') and scopes the result set, but never says when to use this versus alternatives such as get_my_wedding or the update/remove accommodation siblings. Usage is only implied by the name and field list.

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