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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations, explaining that quotes are non-binding, do not reserve inventory, and involve a verification process (secure ATA link, email confirmation). It does not explicitly mention side effects like sending emails, but the guidance to 'tell the traveler... check their inbox' implies external communication.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and essential requirements. Every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisites, verification instructions, and a key constraint (no inventory hold). No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, 31% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is too brief. It omits details about return values (e.g., quote ID, pricing) and does not explain many parameters. With 7 required parameters, the description should provide more guidance on how to construct the request properly.

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 parameter description coverage is 31%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for key parameters like 'travelerAssertion' and 'agentHandoffId' by explaining their roles. However, it does not clarify other parameters such as 'propertyToken', 'roomId', 'checkIn/Out', 'priceAudience', 'selectedRoomCount', or 'displayCurrency'. The description partially compensates for low coverage but leaves many parameters unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate a non-binding reference quote for a traveler.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_provisional_booking' by noting that quotes do not hold inventory or guarantee availability.

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 specifies prerequisites: 'Requires guest name/email plus a current travelerAssertion or fresh approved internal QUOTE agentHandoffId.' It also provides guidance on how to handle verification scenarios (keep internal details private, direct traveler to confirm email). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'create_provisional_booking' or other tools.

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