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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful caveat that the returned price is indicative and that taxes/deposit only appear on the booking page. This is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about caching, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two caveats that matter. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a six-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of the result (indicative price) and the key limitation (final total elsewhere). Slightly more on what the quote returns would close the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (id, date, kids, adults, children, locale) are already documented in the schema, including relative date terms and defaults. The description only implies 'party on a date' and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an indicative price for a party on a date'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like check_availability or get_experience, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Clearly frames the call as a pre-booking step and sets a boundary: 'Payment is completed by the user on the DayPass site, never here.' That tells the agent this is not the transactional path, though it never explicitly points to a sibling tool as the alternative.

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