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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: pricing is authoritative and includes length-of-stay discounts and extras, the quote id must be reused at checkout for totals to match, and the call does not hold inventory or book. No auth or expiry/validity-window details, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the output linkage, then the negative scope. No filler or restatement 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 correctly discloses the key return artifact (quote id) and its use. It also covers what the tool does not do. Minor gap: it does not say whether the quote expires or what happens when the stay is unavailable, which matters for a pricing call.

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 63%; four parameters (numAdults, numInfants, numChildren, quantity) carry no description anywhere. The description does add meaning for `addons` beyond the schema by stating the quoted total includes them and that they come from list_addons, but it does not compensate for the undocumented guest/quantity parameters.

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 (get) and resource (authoritative total price for a specific stay) sourced from the HolidayFox booking system. It also draws a clear boundary against siblings: 'Does not hold the dates or make a booking' separates it from check_availability, and the mention of begin_checkout distinguishes it from checkout.

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?

Gives explicit downstream context — the returned quote id feeds begin_checkout so the checkout total matches — and routes the addons input to list_addons. It stops short of naming check_availability as the alternative to use when the agent only wants availability rather than a price, so the when-not is only implied.

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