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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description correctly reinforces that with 'does not book or charge'. It adds the useful detail that the figure is derived from the expert's public per-minute rate, but does not say whether the estimate excludes fees, taxes, or rate-cap adjustments that a real charge might include.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core result (USD estimate) front-loaded and the safety caveat immediately after.

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 simple two-param calculation tool with no output schema this is nearly sufficient, but the description never states that the return value is a numeric USD amount, nor whether currency conversion or rate caps affect it. With 0% schema coverage, one more sentence on those points would close the gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only loosely implies that expertId selects the rate ('expert public per-minute rate') and that minutes is the multiplier. Nothing explains the 1–180 minute bound, the expertId format, or what happens if the expert is offline.

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 result ('USD estimate') and the basis for it ('expert public per-minute rate'), so the agent knows it is a pure pricing calculation rather than a booking action. It does not name the sibling to use instead, but the phrase 'does not book or charge' already separates it from create_booking.

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 explicit 'use when' statement; the only guidance is a negative clarification that it does not book or charge, which implies pre-booking price checking. No alternatives (e.g. get_country_rate_caps, convert_currency) are mentioned for related pricing questions.

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