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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the extra burden is low. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: a 30-minute expiry on the quote, no date reservation, and payment handled off-tool.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load what is returned before the caveats, with every clause carrying information (inputs, expiry, no-reservation, payment location). Nothing is padded.

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 does state what comes back ('quote and payment totals') and flags the 30-minute validity, which is the key operational caveat. The exact shape of the returned quote is left unspecified, a minor gap for a read-only pricing call.

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 100%, so the schema already documents format, ranges, and defaults for all four parameters. The description's mention of petCount defaulting to 0 and the core inputs merely restates schema content, adding no new syntax or edge-case meaning.

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 ('Return a live PriceLabs quote and payment totals') with the exact inputs that drive it. It implicitly separates itself from a booking tool by clarifying it 'does not reserve dates,' which helps against get_booking_link, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 use case (getting live pricing before committing to a stay) and rules out reservation/payment, but never states when to prefer this over check_availability or get_booking_link, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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