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 structurally. The description does add the useful 'non-binding, non-persisted' framing, but then references 'the saved quote', which conflicts with the non-persisted claim and leaves the agent unsure whether state is created.

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 front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is short but its ambiguity costs it a point rather than its length.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but an 11-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and a mutating-looking second sentence needs far more guidance than provided. The agent cannot infer units, formats, or the meaning of most inputs from this description.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description mentions no parameter at all — not the required vehicle_class or days, nor currency, market, passenger, or distance fields. With the schema carrying no prose, the description should compensate but entirely fails to.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Calculate ... private-driver price range') and the 'private-driver' label cleanly separates it from the sibling preview_rental_quote and preview_transfer_quote. However, the second sentence ('Review the saved quote for payment eligibility and supplier-assignment status') introduces a seemingly different capability that muddies what the tool actually does.

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 category name implies this is the private-driver variant versus the rental and transfer siblings, but the description never states when to choose it over those alternatives or what prerequisites apply. Usage is only implicitly conveyed through the tool's name.

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