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

Discloses mutation semantics ('MUTATES OwnerRez data'), the underlying endpoint (POST /v2/quotes), the account-specific nature of the quote/charge shape, the `fields` escape hatch for that variability, and the return value. Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so this adds substantial context beyond structured fields.

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 tight sentences front-loaded with the mutation warning, then endpoint, then caveat and return. Every sentence earns its place; only the parenthetical gloss is mildly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states it returns the created quote, and it covers mutation, endpoint, and the account-specific field escape hatch. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether quote creation has side effects, which leaves a small gap for a write tool with a nested `fields` object.

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 schema already documents property_id, dates, guest_id, and counts. The description only restates the `fields` merge behavior that the schema already spells out, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 ('creates'), resource ('quote'), scope ('for a property + date range'), and even disambiguates the artifact as 'the pre-booking pricing document'. This distinguishes it from sibling create_booking without opening either schema.

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 'pre-booking pricing document' framing gives clear context for when this tool is the right call versus create_booking. It does not state explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. property must exist, auth scope needed), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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