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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation requires separately granted write permission, should only be invoked after host confirmation, and will not send an email to the guest. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for side effects.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler: purpose first, then permission, then confirmation requirement, then the send_guest_checkin_link follow-up. Every sentence earns its place and the most important operational constraints are front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and sibling send_guest_checkin_link, the description plus a fully documented schema gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It covers permission, confirmation, side effects, and the relevant alternative/follow-up behavior.

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 every parameter thoroughly, including the templateId logic. The description adds only general context around property and dates rather than parameter-level detail. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema is doing 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new booking (a check-in workflow) for one of the host's properties.' It clearly separates this from siblings like send_guest_checkin_link and list_bookings by defining what the tool itself accomplishes. The parenthetical clarifies the domain meaning of 'booking' rather than leaving it ambiguous.

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 gives explicit preconditions: write permission is required, and the host should confirm property and dates before calling. It also provides a when-not/what-next rule by stating it does not email the guest and directing the agent to send_guest_checkin_link if a link should go out. This is actionable guidance, not just context.

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