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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding side-effect context annotations cannot express: the quote is non-binding and non-persisted, and the tool cannot hold, book, cancel, or charge — a meaningful guarantee about downstream state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the scope limits. Zero filler and no restatement of the title.

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 need not be explained. But a 16-parameter, 6-required pricing tool with 0% schema coverage is left with no parameter guidance at all — an agent cannot know the datetime format, whether market constrains valid locations, or how route_code, distance_km, and the currency fields interact. The description is far too thin for this complexity.

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 16 parameters, including a 17-value vehicle_class enum, market (2-char, default FJ), pickup/dropoff TransferLocation objects, luggage, and datetime_local. The description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever — no datetime format, no market semantics, no location-type rules — so it entirely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ... transfer quote') with two defining qualifiers, non-binding and non-persisted, that distinguish it from a real booking flow. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-identical siblings preview_private_driver_quote or preview_rental_quote, so an agent must infer 'transfer' is the distinguishing axis.

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 negative clause ('cannot hold, book, message, cancel, or charge') does bound the tool and implies this is a pre-sales pricing step only. However, there is no statement of when to reach for it instead of preview_private_driver_quote or preview_rental_quote, so alternative routing is left implied.

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