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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the downstream effect that the covered dates lose their price until another row covers them. It doesn't cover idempotency or error behavior on a missing row id.

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?

One compact sentence that leads with the action and follows immediately with the consequence. Every clause earns its place 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?

For a two-parameter delete with fully documented params, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece – what happens to the underlying dates. Return/error behavior is the only notable gap, which is minor here.

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% – both id (boat id, from list_boats) and price_id (row id, from get_pricing) are documented in the schema with provenance. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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+resource ('Delete a direct season price') and the scope of the operation, which distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like delete_fee, delete_discount, and remove_block. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named (e.g., update_price to modify rather than remove coverage). Usage is only inferable from the stated consequence.

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