airbnb_property: GET /

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Fetches' which implies a read operation, and the title indicates GET. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, latency, or any side effects. The detailed field list is helpful, but behavioral expectations beyond a straightforward fetch are not disclosed.

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?

The description is dense but not bloated. It front-loads the purpose and then lists the returned fields and use cases. Every sentence adds value, though the field list could be trimmed slightly. It remains efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields thoroughly (title, description, location, coordinates, fees, ratings, host, counts, photos, amenities, rules, policy, calendar hints). It also covers typical use cases. It does not address error handling, pagination, or timeouts, but for a single-URL fetch those are minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, which is described as a valid Airbnb listing URL. The description confirms this by saying 'by listing URL' but adds no new semantics (e.g., format, validation rules, or URL variants). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Get Airbnb Property Details') and immediately specifies the input (listing URL). It enumerates the full set of returned fields, which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also explicitly ties it to the sibling listing-search endpoint, making differentiation straightforward.

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 lists concrete use cases: travel-planning, deep-dive rate research, photo/amenity enrichment, and compliance audits. It references the listing-search endpoint as the source of discovered listings, which implies the sibling is for searching while this is for detail retrieval. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use cases and the mention of the sibling provide adequate guidance.

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