federation-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a write operation, validates availability, calculates price with potential discounts, creates a pending record requiring host approval, and returns specific details (booking ID, final price, confirmation). It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the core mutation behavior adequately.

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, starting with the core action and resource, then detailing the workflow and return values in a single, efficient sentence. Every phrase adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the action, workflow, and return values. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if validation fails, leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying that propertyId, checkIn, and checkOut are used for availability validation and price calculation. This meets the baseline of 3 since the 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 specific action ('Create a new direct booking'), the resource ('for a property'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's a 'direct booking' (unlike check_availability which verifies, get_canonical_quote which calculates, or search_properties which finds). It includes the full workflow from validation to creation.

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 context through 'validates availability' and 'creates a pending booking record requiring host approval', suggesting it should be used when availability is confirmed and host approval is acceptable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_canonical_quote for price calculation or check_availability for verification, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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