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

Beyond the idempotent and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral constraint: the URL must be handed to the customer and not followed by the agent. It also adds the deposit_taken context and clarifies the next step, adding real behavioral value.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: output first, then the critical warning, then usage preconditions, then the deposit caveat. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

With two fully described parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the output contents, customer context, usage conditions, and the relevant sibling tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool 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?

The schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is high. The description adds useful context by explaining that offer_id comes from get_quote or a booking flow and that the result interacts with deposit status, helping the agent pick the correct value.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: a plain-text summary of a priced offer plus a customer-facing URL, and it enumerates the summary fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the URL is for the customer to open, not for the agent.

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?

It provides an explicit precondition ('once get_quote or a booking flow has produced an offer_id'), a readiness condition, and an exclusion for already-paid deposits via create_booking_payment_link. It also gives the critical do-not-open/fetch/follow instruction, which is essential operational guidance.

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