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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value: the result is only an indicative quote, the final total (taxes/deposit) appears on the booking page, and no payment is ever performed here. This scope boundary helps the agent set user expectations correctly.

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, each front-loaded and earning its place: what it returns, the caveat about final totals, and the payment boundary. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 appropriately conveys the nature of the result (indicative quote, not final total) and the payment boundary. It omits whether the id must correspond to an existing experience or whether availability is a prerequisite, but otherwise covers what an agent needs.

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. The description only alludes to 'a party on a date' and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb+resource: return an indicative price for a party on a given date. It is clearly a pricing/quote operation, distinct from siblings like get_experience or check_availability, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (call this to preview cost before booking), and the description usefully clarifies that payment happens on the DayPass site, not through the tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any named alternative such as check_availability, so the agent must infer the routing.

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