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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that there is no availability guarantee, no charge, booking, message, or reservation, and warns against sending customer contact details. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent important behavioral expectations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second defines exclusions, and the third gives a clear parameter constraint. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are strong, the description covers the non-obvious constraints needed to call correctly: local time, address format, non-binding nature, and privacy rule. It does not elaborate on locale or specialRequests, but the schema and output schema cover those, so the description is reasonably complete for this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does clarify that time is local service time and that addresses should include city or postcode, and 'complete ride facts' implies all required ride fields. But it leaves locale, specialRequests, returnDate/returnTime, tripType, and passengers largely to schema inference, so compensation is only partial.

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 clearly states a specific action and output: 'Get a current price preview for complete ride facts.' It also differentiates itself from siblings like prepare_offer by explicitly excluding booking, charge, message, and reservation, making the tool's non-binding quote role unmistakable.

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?

It gives solid context for when to use the tool: for a current, non-binding price preview, and explicitly says what it does not do (no availability guarantee, booking, charge, message, or reservation). It also instructs not to include customer contact details. However, it does not name sibling tools or explicitly route to prepare_offer when booking is needed, so it lacks a full when-not/alternative mapping.

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