Host profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses data caveats such as 'undated starting prices' and 'newest reviews across all their rooms', which warn the agent about freshness/scope of the returned figures. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only lookup.

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?

Two short sentences plus a guidance sentence, with the core purpose front-loaded and the input paths second. Every clause carries information (returned fields, entry options, use case) with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value formatting need not be explained, and the description still names the main returned fields. Annotations cover the safety profile and all four parameters are schema-documented, so an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 host_id, room_id, rooms_limit and reviews_limit are all documented in the schema itself, including the 'or a room id' alternative. The description restates the host_id/room_id either-or but adds no syntax, format, or limit semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a host') and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: response time, response/acceptance rates, member since, active rooms with starting prices, and newest guest reviews. The host-level aggregation is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ot_room (single room) and ot_reviews (reviews only), and the 'judge whether a host is reliable' framing pins down intent.

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?

Gives the two entry paths ('Pass host_id, or room_id to find the room's host') and a clear purpose statement ('use to judge whether a host is reliable or to see their other places'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming a sibling to prefer instead, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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