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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds meaningful behavioral context: the 50-booking scan window, the signed-in host scope, empty-list semantics, and the explicit 'No guest PII' guarantee. The exact return shape and ordering are not disclosed, but this is not critical for a read-only tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's action and outcome, then compactly lists the criteria and key behavioral facts (empty-list meaning, PII exclusion). Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, output selection criteria, empty-list behavior, and privacy boundary. The main unstated detail is the exact response structure, but the described behavior is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The single parameter arrivalWindowDays is fully documented in the schema with a default value and an explanation of the negative-gap meaning, giving a baseline of 3. The description itself does not add further parameter detail, but none is needed given the schema's complete coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it scans the signed-in host's recent bookings and returns only actionable items. It then enumerates the exact inclusion criteria (imminent/in-progress stays with no guest check-in, and failed SES.HOSPEDAJES submissions), which clearly distinguishes it from list_bookings and status-related siblings.

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 clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: it is for surfacing only items that need immediate action, and an empty list means nothing requires attention. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_bookings for full booking history or get_guest_form_status for individual form status, so the exclusion guidance is implied rather than stated.

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