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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context: unknown prices are excluded and the result must not be claimed as a confirmed quote or reservation. It does not describe pagination, output shape, or failure behavior, but those gaps are less critical given the read-only annotation.

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 compact sentences with the core action and key constraints front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information, including the currency, draft status, unknown-price handling, and output limitation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description sufficiently indicates that the tool returns a draft subtotal in COP. Combined with annotations and the simple one-parameter input, the definition gives enough context to invoke correctly, though it could clarify the result contents more explicitly.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It says the calculation uses service IDs and quantities, which maps to the items[].id and items[].quantity fields, but it does not explain that quantity is optional, any default quantity, the maximum of 30 items, or how unknown IDs are handled beyond excluding their prices.

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: calculate a non-binding draft subtotal in COP from service IDs and quantities. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search tools, which retrieve experiences or quotes rather than computing a subtotal.

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 establishes that this is a draft, non-binding calculation and should never be represented as a confirmed reservation or quote. It implies use in pre-booking estimation, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_experiences or search_live_room_quotes or state when not to use this tool.

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