federation-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies against specific conflict types and returns a boolean with details, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, verification scope, and return value. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core functionality and return format, but lacks details on error cases, response structure beyond 'available=true/false with conflict details', and integration with sibling tools, which could hinder an agent's effective use.

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 schema already documents all parameters (propertyId, checkIn, checkOut) with their types and formats. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining date range inclusivity or propertyId sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('specific property'), specifying what it checks against ('host-blocked dates, confirmed bookings, and active booking locks'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_booking (which books) and search_properties (which finds properties).

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 implies usage by mentioning 'requested date range' and conflict details, suggesting it's for verifying availability before booking. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_booking or get_canonical_quote, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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