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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it names the required authentication/authorization paths, states that the tool returns 'stored prices and payment terms,' and explicitly clarifies that a quote is not a booking or inventory hold. This enriches the agent's mental model of the tool's state and side effects without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: the first states the purpose and identifiers, the second enumerates auth prerequisites, and the third sets expectations about return values and limitation. Information is front-loaded and 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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main return type ('stored prices and payment terms') and all auth paths. It does not specify whether the three identifiers are mutually exclusive or what happens when multiple are provided, nor does it state a precedence order. For a 6-parameter tool with no required fields and no output schema, this is a minor but meaningful gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description compensates by explaining that quoteId, quoteHash, and quoteUrl are interchangeable identifiers ('using its actual quoteId, quoteHash or quoteUrl'). It also clarifies that agentHandoffId must be a 'still-valid USED QUOTE handoff' and travelerAssertion must be 'current signed.' However, propertyToken remains undescribed in both schema and description, so compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('previously created quote'), and the three accepted identifiers, immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_quote and get_booking_details. The clarifying sentence 'A quote is not a booking or inventory hold' reinforces the differentiation. No ambiguity remains about what operation this tool performs.

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 explicitly states the conditions under which the tool can be used ('Requires a current signed traveler assertion, verified legacy session, or the still-valid USED QUOTE handoff'), and warns against misuse ('never substitute another room's payment schedule'). It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the caveat about quotes vs bookings implies when not to use it. Clear context with a minor exclusion makes this a 4.

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