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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing the tier-selection algorithm, the ~15-minute quoteId lifetime, the non-destructive nature of quoting, and the required 'bookings' OAuth scope distinct from the 'McpAgent' scope other tools use.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: pricing behavior first, then the quoteId contract, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries information, though the tier example could be trimmed for a tighter read.

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 correctly covers the return value (quoteId, ~15 min validity) plus auth and next-step semantics, leaving no material gap for calling it correctly.

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%, so every parameter is already documented; the description adds only indirect meaning (nights derived from checkIn/checkOut drive the tier choice) and no per-parameter syntax or constraints.

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 precise verb+resource ('server-computed price and availability quote for booking a Stay package') and scopes it to the caller's own behalf, which cleanly separates it from the host-side siblings like createStayPackage and from bookStay.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to bookStay as the follow-on action and warns never to reuse a price shown elsewhere, but it never says when to use this versus checkStayAvailability or hasAvailabilityInWindow for pure availability questions.

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