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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the quote is 'exact' and 'live', it returns a payment schedule plus policies, and it surfaces structured failure reasons rather than a generic error. It stops short of saying whether a quote expires or is held, which would matter for a booking flow.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary outcome and appends the failure mode in a parenthetical. Zero filler, and both branches an agent needs to reason about are in the first clause set.

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 adequately by naming the payment schedule, policies, and rejection reasons. Minor gaps remain around quote validity/expiry and currency, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 all eight parameters including the guest/pet counts and date formats are already documented. The description only echoes that guest limits and minimum stay can block a booking, adding no format or default detail beyond the schema — 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?

A specific verb-noun pairing (live price quote) with explicit scope: one stay, one property. It also enumerates the two possible outcomes — a priced itinerary with payment schedule and policies, or a stated rejection reason — which lets an agent distinguish it from search_stays (multi-property browsing) without opening a schema.

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 context is implied rather than stated: 'one stay at one property' signals this is the per-property pricing step, and the failure reasons ('dates taken, minimum stay') hint that it is a pre-booking check. But it never explicitly says when to call it versus search_stays or create_booking_link, nor that it is a prerequisite for booking.

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