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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds valuable context by detailing exactly which components the calculation includes (seasonal prices, last-minute discounts, savings, visitor's tax by age, laundry package), which helps the agent understand the calculation logic beyond the safety hints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Vollständige Preisberechnung') and then enumerates the included components. Every element adds value, with no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient and easily parsed.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: the scope (specific period), key inputs (dates, children's ages), and what is included in the result (seasonal prices, discounts, taxes, laundry). It stops short of explicitly stating the return format (e.g., whether a breakdown is provided), but the mention of 'bis zum Gesamtpreis' implies the total is returned. Overall, it is largely complete for its purpose.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that children's ages ('kinder_alter') directly influence the visitor's tax ('Kurtaxe nach Alter'), which clarifies the parameter's role in the calculation beyond its schema description. It also mentions a laundry package not reflected as a parameter, providing additional context.

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 the tool calculates a full price for a specific date range, enumerating components like seasonal nightly rates, last-minute discounts, visitor's tax by age, and laundry package. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'preise' (price list) and 'verfuegbarkeit_pruefen' (availability check), as it specifically computes a total for a concrete period.

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 the tool is used when a concrete period is known and a comprehensive price (including discounts and taxes) is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'preise' for basic rates, so usage guidance remains at the implied level.

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