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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds a genuinely new behavioral trait: the calculation neither persists nor contacts anyone. It also hints at the response shape ('complete, warnings and availabilityStatus'). It stops short of noting rate limits or exactly what a warning signifies.

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 with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse and slightly cryptic ('Check complete, warnings and availabilityStatus'), but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with a highly complex two-branch plan schema and no output schema, the description is only partially adequate. It helpfully names response fields (complete, warnings, availabilityStatus) but never explains the two plan variants or what the top-level kind values mean, which an agent needs to call 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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% for kind, plan, and catalogVersion, and the description explains none of them - not the kind enum values, not the two plan variants, not catalogVersion's role. The nested field descriptions do the real work, so the description adds nothing here despite the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Calculate' restates the tool name and the resource (quote/price) is only implied by the name, not stated in the text. The added 'without saving or contacting anyone' scopes it as a dry-run, which is useful, but it never says what is being quoted or for whom. Siblings like suggest_group and get_catalog are not differentiated.

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 phrase 'without saving or contacting anyone' implies the right context (preview before committing) but never names an alternative or a when-not condition. No sibling tool is referenced, so the agent must infer that this is the non-persisting counterpart to whatever saves a booking.

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