hemmabo_host_onboarding_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds significant value by explicitly stating that the tool does not create an account, buy a domain, configure Stripe, write to Supabase, or provision a booking site, and discloses what it returns. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose, then mention usage context, list exclusions, and state outputs. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (no required params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the return value and what the host should prepare. It could mention edge cases like missing input domains, but that is mitigated by the schema's optional fields.

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 each parameter meaning. The tool description does not add new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Return'), the resource ('HemmaBo onboarding handoff URL'), and the specific use case ('host who wants an own-domain booking engine'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the tool's limited scope and providing usage context ('Use after explaining the fit or when the host asks to start').

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 says when to use ('after explaining the fit or when the host asks to start') and lists what the tool does NOT do, implying when not to use it. However, it does not name specific sibling tools for tasks like creating an account or buying a domain, leaving a minor gap in guidance.

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