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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the number is non-binding, extras such as electricity are excluded, and children up to 14 are free. What it omits is whether rates vary by season or when the quote could go stale.

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 pricing rules are dense and useful, but the German trailing sentence largely restates the English ('Richtpreis ohne Extras'), and the opening clause is grammatically fragmentary rather than front-loading the key caveat (non-binding estimate).

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should say what the response contains (total amount, currency, per-night breakdown). It explains the pricing formula but not the return shape, and event_slug is left unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains adults, nights, category (via included_adults per category) and children (free up to 14), but event_slug is never mentioned and category_key is only obliquely referenced. Partial compensation leaves two parameters semantically thin.

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 resource (guide price for pitch and persons) and enumerates the driving inputs (category, adults, nights), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_reservation or get_availability. The telegraphic opening sentence ('Guide price for pitch and persons') is a bit compressed but still names verb-ish intent and scope.

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?

Implies usage via the caveat that extras are excluded and the binding amount appears in the booking form, which signals this is an indicative-only estimate. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus get_booking_link or create_reservation, and no prerequisites (e.g., event must exist) are given.

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