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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that, notably that totalPrice excludes taxes and other fees, that taxesIncluded flags this, that eventsDuringStay is capped at 5 with a total count, and the full enumeration of unavailability reasons.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the success payload is listed first, then the failure shape. Slightly list-heavy and could be split for scannability, but no sentence is filler.

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 full burden of explaining return values and does so in detail for both success and failure paths; the only gap is that it does not describe caching/volatility of a 'live' quote or how pricing varies by guest count.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented with patterns and bounds; the description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond implying that dates and guests drive the quote, which the schema already makes obvious.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns a live quote for one unit and stay') and immediately contrasts with what sibling tools like get_property would return, so an agent can tell it is the pricing call rather than a static detail lookup.

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 implies usage through the bookable/not-bookable framing and names the failure reasons an agent will hit, which helps it interpret results, but it never states when to call this versus get_property or get_calendar, nor that siteSlug must come from list_sites first (that hint lives only in the schema).

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