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

The description says supplying 'prices' replaces ALL price rows, which is a destructive replacement, while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction: an agent relying on the annotation would not expect the existing rows to be overwritten/dropped. Although the auth-scope sentence adds useful context, the rubric requires a score of 1 when the description contradicts annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, critical replacement behavior, and auth prerequisite. 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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two most important call-level facts: the replacement behavior of 'prices' and the required token scope. The schema documents most optional fields, though partial-update semantics and some field cascades remain implicit.

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 71%, and the description only reinforces the 'prices' replacement behavior already documented in the schema. It adds no meaning for undocumented parameters such as listed, maxPax, description, or packageName. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.

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 ('Update an existing pricing package on a Stay'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from createStayPackage/deleteStayPackage and updateStayRoom.

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 phrase 'existing pricing package' implies use for modifications, and the token requirement implies a prerequisite, but the description never says when to choose this over createStayPackage, deleteStayPackage, or getMyStayPackages. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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