airbnb_property: GET /

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is fetched but not operational characteristics such as rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects (none expected), or response structure. For a data-fetching tool, this omission is significant; the agent lacks guidance on error states or access constraints.

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 two sentences: a clear title and a dense list of return fields and use cases. It is front-loaded and concise, though the list is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be improved with bullet points for readability.

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 the complexity of Airbnb property data and the absence of an output schema, the description covers a comprehensive set of return fields (title, description, location, coordinates, price, fees, rating, host, counts, photos, amenities, rules, policy, calendar hints). It also ties these to use cases. Minor gaps remain (e.g., exact format of calendar hints), but overall it is complete enough for typical agents.

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 one parameter 'url' with 100% coverage (description says 'Must be a valid Airbnb listing URL'). The tool description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, providing no examples or formatting details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Airbnb Property Details' by fetching the full page from a listing URL. It enumerates specific return fields (title, description, location, coordinates, price, fees, rating, host, counts, photos, amenities, rules, policy, calendar hints), distinguishing it from sibling tools like listing-search or other property endpoints.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'travel-planning agents, deep-dive rate research, photo/amenity enrichment of listings discovered via the listing-search endpoint, and LSTR compliance or market-quality audits.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives beyond referencing the listing-search endpoint.

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