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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description goes further: amounts are integer cents, the failure envelope is spelled out (ok:false with unavailable/min_stay/no_checkin_day/no_checkout_day/max_guests/no_rates/invalid_range), and 'A quote holds nothing' confirms no persistence. This is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 the core purpose, then layers units and the failure taxonomy in three tight sentences with zero filler. The parenthetical breakdowns are efficient rather than redundant.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so for the failure path and the breakdown components. It stops short of the success envelope shape (field names/currency) and any auth or rate-limit context, but is otherwise complete for a read-only quote tool.

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% – all five params (slug, checkIn, checkOut, adults, children) are documented in the schema itself, including format notes like 'that night is not included'. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraint beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 operation (total price of one stay for a party) with an enumerated breakdown (nights, length discount, extra-guest fee, cleaning) and clarifies it is 'the same calculation that charges the guest'. An agent can immediately separate this pricing tool from check_availability or create_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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the error reasons (min_stay, no_checkin_day, max_guests) indirectly reveal booking constraints, but the description never says when to prefer this over check_availability or that a quote should precede create_checkout. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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