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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'no booking, no charge' reinforces the safety profile. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool performs a live re-price against the supplier, returns an authoritative grand total, a `rateValidUntil` timestamp, and taxes/fees. It does not detail failure modes or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and safety guarantee are front-loaded, and the return value summary is compact. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only re-pricing tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and where inputs come from. It does not explain the `ref` vs `supplierCode`+`supplierHotelId` alternative, but the schema already documents that. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the description listing the key return fields.

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 schema already documents all 14 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of `totalPrice` ('used to detect price changes') and clarifying that `offerRef` comes from `get_rooms`. It also clarifies that `totalPrice` is the total for the whole stay, not a nightly rate, which is critical for correct invocation. This goes beyond the schema's own description.

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 ('re-price'), a specific resource ('a specific room live against the supplier'), and the context ('before checkout'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from booking/charging ('no booking, no charge') and names the source of inputs (`get_rooms`). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like `create_checkout` and `get_rooms`.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: before checkout to re-price a room, and it references `get_rooms` for the `offerRef` and price/currency. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like `create_checkout`, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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