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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real semantics: a quote holds nothing ('nothing is held or booked'), what the price breakdown contains (accommodation, discounts, fees, tax, in AMD), and that cancellation terms, payment mechanics and a booking link come back too. It does not mention quote expiry, auth, or failure behaviour when dates are unavailable.

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 in the first sentence, then segments by listing type and finally the shared extras (cancellation, payment, booking link). Dense with specifics such as currency and slot-with-seats detail; no filler sentences.

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 return-value explanation and does so thoroughly across both listing types. Minor gaps remain: nothing about what happens when dates are unavailable (error vs. empty result) or whether the quoted price is guaranteed for any period.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: startDate is check-in for stays versus the activity date for tours, dates are validated against host calendars/minimum stay/capacity, and guests drives 'the total for the party'. That clarifies how the parameters interact rather than restating field docs.

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+resource ('Exact availability and all-in price for one stay, tour or experience') and immediately splits the behaviour by listing type, including what is returned for each (itemised total in AMD vs. open time slots with seats). It also carves out the boundary with get_listing ('Hotels list their room types (rooms are chosen on the listing page)') and points to search_listings as the source of the slug.

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?

Provides clear context for when this applies: per-listing exact quoting for stays vs. tours, with the slug sourced 'from search_listings' and a note that hotels require a separate room choice. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling check_availability (e.g., browse-then-quote vs. exact quote) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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