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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description is free to add business behavior — the 13% fee, a refundable deposit that returns in full if the guide declines, the on-day balance, the cancellation cutoff, guide response latency, and the assurance that values match what the site charges. That is substantial context beyond the safety hints and reinforces the read-only nature.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then an arrow mapping inputs to a checklist of returned values, closing with the key exclusion. The nested parentheticals explaining the deposit make one sentence quite dense, but every clause carries real information and the ordering is logical.

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 spends its budget enumerating the returned fields, including the fee arithmetic and refund terms. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the result.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds value by framing the operative inputs as 'guia + datas + pessoas', signaling which parameters actually drive the computation and implicitly demoting kind and page_path to optional refinements. It does not explain date formats or the page_path fallback, which the schema already handles.

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 (quoting a guided fishing trip) and enumerates exactly what the quote contains: guide price, the 13% iscabox fee, total, deposit, remainder, cancellation deadline, response time. It also draws a hard boundary with the booking path via 'Não cria pedido', so an agent can tell it apart from request_booking without opening a schema.

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 purpose plus 'Não cria pedido' makes the when-to-use context clear (price inquiry, not booking) and implicitly routes booking to a sibling. It never names request_booking explicitly, so the alternative must be inferred from the sibling list rather than read from the description.

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