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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: pricing is per vehicle rather than per person, directionality is irrelevant, and on-request pairs return the literal sentinel "no list price" — which an agent must recognize rather than treat as an error.

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 core semantics (price, per vehicle, symmetric, no-list-price case) are front-loaded and every sentence is load-bearing. The airport naming is stated twice — once inside the known-places list and again as an explicit instruction — which is mild redundancy, though arguably justified by the exact-match requirement.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the currency (EUR), the unit basis (per vehicle), and the non-numeric sentinel for on-request pairs. Combined with the enumerated place vocabulary, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by enumerating the valid place values and mandating the exact airport strings ("Antalya Airport (AYT)", "Gazipaşa Airport (GZP)"), which materially improves the odds of a resolvable request.

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 a specific verb and resource — a fixed EUR price for a private AHM Transfer ride between two places — and scopes it geographically (Alanya/Antalya region). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_routes and get_service_info without opening any schema.

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 establishes clear context for use (private transfer pricing between two known places, same price in both directions) and warns that some pairs return "no list price" because they are quoted on request. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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