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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the four possible states and what 'pending' means for polling behavior, plus what a 'quoted' result contains (stay_id, total, cancellation terms).

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-loaded and dense in two sentences, with the state enumeration carrying most of the information. The leading 'READ.' is redundant with readOnlyHint and is the only wasted token.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics — and it does, listing every state and the shape of a successful quote. Combined with the single well-documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Quote id returned by search_availability'), so the schema already does the work. The description repeats the same origin of quote_id without adding format or validation detail; 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 verb and resource ('Returns the status of a quote from search_availability') and anchors the tool to its producer sibling, so the agent knows exactly which object this reads. Distinct from create_booking_session / cancel_booking_session among siblings.

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?

Explains the workflow explicitly: obtain quote_id from search_availability, and when the state is 'quoted' use the offer's stay_id with create_booking_session. It even tells the agent to retry on 'pending'. It stops short of stating when not to use it, but the routing is clear.

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