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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as no mention of rate limits, auth requirements, or error behavior. It does not contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that concisely captures the essence of the tool. No filler or redundant information.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical details like whether checkIn/checkOut are required, what the response format is, currency handling, and how this integrates with other tools. The annotations clarify safety but not functional completeness.

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 only 38%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (checkIn, checkOut, currency, listingId). The phrase 'specific dates + occupancy' hints at some parameters but adds no format, constraints, or default behaviors beyond the schema's sparse notes.

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, while not using a strong verb, clearly states the function: generating a price quote for one listing, scoped by dates and occupancy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_prices (likely multi-listing comparison) and check_availability (availability, not pricing).

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 description implies usage context (a single listing, specific dates, occupancy) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like compare_prices or search_stays. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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