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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns the live page price, includes available options, and explicitly does not book anything, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or output shape.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information: currency, price fidelity, option listing, and the no-booking constraint.

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 low-complexity read-only quote tool, the definition is nearly complete: annotations cover safety, the schema fully documents inputs, and the description states the returned price currency and that options are included. The only minor gap is that the exact output format for options is not described, but no output schema exists to carry that detail.

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%, and the schema already documents all three parameters, including examples and the note that quote_boracay_activity lists options. The description restates activity, option, and guests but adds no syntax, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: get the live price in Philippine pesos for a Boracay activity, option, and guest count. It also clarifies the price fidelity (same as the activity page) and that it books nothing, which distinguishes it from the create_*booking_link siblings.

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 phrase "Books nothing" clearly signals this is for pricing rather than booking, and the activity scope distinguishes it from quote_boracay_airport_transfer. However, no sibling is explicitly named and no prerequisite such as first using list_boracay_activities is stated in the description itself.

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