hemmabo_host_onboarding_link

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'does not create a HemmaBo account, buy a domain, configure Stripe, write to Supabase, or provision a booking site.' It also clarifies that 'nothing is stored server-side' and that parameters only prefill the URL. This goes far beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then proceeds through exclusions, usage, safety, and parameter behavior. It is somewhat long but every sentence contributes needed context—no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though not minimal.

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 6 optional parameters, no required fields, and existing output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, who it is for, when to use it, safety guarantees, and high-level return contents ('returns the URL, what the host gets, and what the host should prepare'). The output schema handles detailed return fields, so no further explanation is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds collective parameter semantics: 'All parameters are optional and only enrich the returned onboarding URL... prefilled into it... nothing is stored server-side.' This clarifies the purpose and side-effect-free nature beyond individual schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a safe HemmaBo onboarding handoff URL for a vacation-rental host.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Not for guests — a guest looking for a place to stay should use hemmabo_search_properties instead.' This directly differentiates the tool from the search tool among the sibling list.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after explaining the fit or when the host asks to start.' It also gives an alternative for a different situation: 'if the host is still evaluating whether HemmaBo fits, run hemmabo_host_readiness_check first.' This names specific alternative tools and excluded audiences.

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