verify_vacation_rental_node

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

The description discloses that the tool reads the domain's .well-known/vacation-rental.json and JWKS, and emphasizes the read-only nature. It adds critical context about trust ('result is only as trustworthy as the exact domain you pass') and further clarifies it does not handle availability or booking. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.) 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 core purpose, then logically explains what it reads, when to use it, and what to do next. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise for the amount of critical guidance it provides.

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?

The description is fully complete for a verification tool: it states the purpose, behavior, usage, input format, trust caveat, and the next step after success. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits return-value details. No gaps are evident given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the schema has 100% coverage with a detailed parameter description including pattern and examples, the description adds extra nuance by reiterating the bare hostname constraint and explaining that verification reads the passed domain's own files, tying parameter semantics to the trust boundary. This goes slightly beyond the schema's baseline.

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 verifies that a host domain is a valid VRP node, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is a read-only trust check and not for availability, pricing, booking, or payment, and by contrasting with hemmabo_search_properties which can skip to get_verified_stay_offer.

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 when a host domain arrives from outside search (user-typed or third-party), and states that domains from hemmabo_search_properties can go straight to get_verified_stay_offer. It also gives a clear exclusion ('do NOT use it to answer those questions') and instructs what to do on success (call get_verified_stay_offer), fully defining the usage context.

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