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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool is public (no token needed), returns amounts in minor units, and outputs a per-person breakdown plus group total. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the key operational traits (authentication, output format) are addressed.

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 four sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, the second describes output, the third covers public access and units, and the fourth provides a critical usage hint. Every sentence 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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers inputs, outputs, authentication, unit format, and the prerequisite call. It is missing details on error handling or invalid parameter behavior, but adequately equips an agent to use the tool for its primary purpose.

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 60% (3 out of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that tier_id defaults to the cheapest and nights to the reference length, and by directing the agent to get_itinerary_dossier for tier/option ids. However, it largely restates schema fields for option_ids and travellers, contributing limited new semantic information.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Price an itinerary's cost model') and specifies the resources involved: comfort tier, per-line choices, trip length, and traveller count. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly referencing the prerequisite tool get_itinerary_dossier, signaling that this tool is for pricing after obtaining dossier data.

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 provides a clear usage context by instructing the agent to 'Call get_itinerary_dossier first for the tier and option ids', establishing a sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other pricing-related siblings (e.g., get_pricing) or give alternative use cases.

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