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

With only destructiveHint=true provided, the description adds real value: it flags 'MUTATES OwnerRez data', names the HTTP method/path, warns that the quote/charge shape is account-specific, and notes that the call returns the created quote. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements or side effects like whether an existing quote is affected.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the mutation warning and purpose, then the endpoint, then the account-specific caveat and return value. No filler and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a 7-param mutation tool with no output schema and a nested `fields` object, the description covers purpose, mutation, endpoint, variability caveat, and return value. What remains uncovered – permissions/auth requirements and any constraint on valid date ranges – is minor given the rich schema descriptions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it by explaining the `fields` escape hatch ('extra documented fields to send ... merged with the typed fields above') and why it exists (account-specific shape). It adds little for the date/guest params, which the schema already documents.

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 ('creates a quote for a property + date range') and clarifies exactly what a quote is ('the pre-booking pricing document'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create_booking. The endpoint reference (POST /v2/quotes) further pins down the operation.

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 phrase 'pre-booking pricing document' implies the usage context (quote before booking), but the description never explicitly says when to use this vs. create_booking or get_quote, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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