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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the 15-minute quote_id validity, the price-locking behavior, and the OUTSIDE_PARIS_REGION refusal with the prescribed escalation fallback. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent must know before invoking.

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-loads what the tool does and returns, then the sequencing rule, then the gate — a logical order with each sentence earning its place. It is dense (the IMPORTANT/COVERAGE GATE blocks read as policy text) but no sentence is filler.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (all-vehicle prices plus a quote_id). Combined with the ordering requirement and the out-of-coverage refusal path, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the dd/mm/yyyy format for pickup_date and hints at channel-dependent behavior via the coverage gate, but adds little parameter meaning the schema does not already provide.

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 ('Calculate the exact price for a private chauffeur transfer') and immediately clarifies the output: prices for all vehicles plus a quote_id. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like book_ride and get_vehicles.

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?

Explicit sequencing rule ('Always call this before book_ride and pass the quote_id to book_ride'), plus an explicit when-not case: trips outside the Paris region must not be priced and should be escalated instead. Both the happy path and the exclusion are stated with no inference required.

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