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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the key side-effect boundary—this tool does NOT create a booking—and frames the result as an estimate, which is important context. It does not describe output structure or pricing edge cases, but the core non-mutating behavior is clear.

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 sentences with no filler. The essential action, non-booking behavior, and usage context are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 46 parameters but no output schema, the description covers the core invocation context and expected outcome at a high level. It could add return-shape or validation caveats, but the combination of full schema coverage and the explicit no-booking behavior makes it reasonably complete.

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%, and every parameter already has a description with enums where relevant. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, but it does not need to because the schema handles parameter semantics; the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific action ('calculate'), the resource ('estimated price and duration'), and the domain ('service'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from booking tools with 'WITHOUT creating a booking'. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_order even without naming them.

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 states the exact phase to use the tool: 'during the quoting phase before the customer commits.' It implies that a different tool should be used once the customer is ready to commit, but it does not explicitly name create_order or list when-not-to-use conditions, so it provides clear context rather than full alternative guidance.

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