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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return structure (per-leg pricing and total cost range), which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is a notable gap given the absence of 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of a multi-city pricing tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose, the leg-count constraint, and the nature of the return value. It does not fully elaborate on edge cases or failure modes, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the 'min 2' constraint for legs is already in the schema, and the return value mention is tool-level rather than parameter-specific.

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 description uses the specific verb 'Price' with the resource 'multi-city route' and immediately clarifies the scope with '2+ legs'. It explicitly states the tool returns per-leg pricing and total cost range, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like one_way_search or route_compare.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: for multi-city routes with 2 or more legs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the '2+ legs' condition provides clear context that this is not for single-leg or simple round-trip queries.

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