hemmabo_host_readiness_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces these by stating it is read-only and does not create accounts or write to Supabase. It adds context about the fit assessment and explanation scope, which is consistent 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 a single well-organized paragraph. It starts with purpose, followed by usage context, then explains what the tool covers, and ends with exclusions. Every sentence is informative and no redundancy. Ideal length and structure.

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?

For a readiness check with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's scope well: fit assessment, host benefits, required inputs, and next step. Lacks explicit mention of return format, but that is acceptable without an output schema. Slightly incomplete on naming the next step 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 coverage is 100% and all parameter descriptions are thorough. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, such as noting that propertyType 'hotel' may indicate poor fit (already in schema description). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 explicitly states the tool is a 'Read-only fit check for vacation-rental hosts who ask an AI agent how to create an own-domain booking website or booking engine.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling guest-facing tools like hemmabo_booking_create. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 this when the user is a host/property owner evaluating HemmaBo, not when a guest wants to book a stay'), and lists what the tool does not do to set boundaries. It mentions a 'safe next step' but does not name the sibling tool (hemmabo_host_onboarding_link), slightly reducing proactive guidance.

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