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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context: the price comes from Harel's official 2026 tariff, the result is broken out per traveller and total, and the tool emits a warning when the trip exceeds the maximum days for an age. That edge-case disclosure is genuinely useful.

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 with the core purpose and tight at two sentences with no filler. The second sentence is somewhat tangential but earns its place by disclosing the out-of-range behavior.

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 a read-only, idempotent quoting tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (price per traveller/total and the max-days warning). It remains incomplete on the meaning of four of the eight parameters, which an agent would need to set the optional coverage flags.

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 50% and the description does not compensate: the undocumented booleans (winter, baggage, extreme) are never explained anywhere, nor is how ages/days interact with the quoted tariff. Only 'per traveller and total' maps loosely to the ages parameter.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Estimated price (USD) of Harel Passport First Class travel insurance for a trip') and states the return shape (per traveller and total). It is clearly distinguishable from rule-lookup siblings like age_rules and coverage_limits, though it never names them 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling rule/limit tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only weakly implied by the domain context of trip pricing.

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