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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, but the description adds real value by flagging that this is a non-mutating quote despite being a POST endpoint (Hostfully: POST /api/v3.3/quotes) and that nothing is persisted. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then the non-mutation guarantee, then the upstream endpoint. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by naming the quote components returned. Still, it does not state whether the quote is time-limited, what happens on unavailable dates, or how the total is structured, leaving some return-shape ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

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 all 8 parameters (including lead_uid, pet_count, children_count, agency_uid) are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'for the given dates and party' adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('price') plus resource ('a prospective stay at one property'), with an enumeration of what is computed (rent, fees, taxes, security deposit, total). The clause 'Computes only — creates nothing' cleanly separates it from the create_job/create_lead siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'prospective stay' — call it to price a stay before booking. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as hostfully_get_pricing_periods when the agent wants base rates rather than a full quote.

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