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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, but the description adds critical business behavior: no estimated totals, explicit fallback statuses (incomplete, source_unavailable), and the host-approval constraint for dog stays. These details materially affect what the agent can report and when.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and followed by the key exception and fallback rule. No filler or redundancy.

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 and a five-parameter quote tool, the description explains the critical return conditions and failure states. It leaves some details of the successful response shape implicit, but the behavioral essentials for correct invocation are covered.

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 60%: check_in, check_out, and dogs are documented in the schema, while adults and children are not. The description only mentions the dog approval rule, which duplicates the schema's own dogs description, and adds no meaning for adults or children.

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: returns a verified total in EUR minor units, with explicit conditions about completeness. It implicitly differentiates from availability-oriented siblings like check_availability, though it does not name any sibling directly.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: return a total only when live availability, rates, fees, and taxes are complete; otherwise report incomplete or source_unavailable. It also notes that a priced dog stay still requires host approval, which tells the agent when a total is not final.

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