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

Annotations only give generic flags (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so credit goes to the description for disclosing the two facts an agent actually needs: the quote is time-boxed to 30 minutes and it does not reserve the screens. It stops short of explaining why the call is non-read-only or whether repeated calls re-price.

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, no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (price hold, no screen hold, exclusive end date) are front-loaded. Nothing needs to be skimmed past.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the description covers the principal caveats (price expiry, no inventory hold, date boundaries). It leaves one small gap: it never states that either items or venue_ids must be supplied, which matters given zero required parameters.

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 already 100% and the schema itself documents the exclusive end date, so the baseline is 3. The description lifts this by spelling out the exclusivity with a worked example (1 Nov booking = start 2026-11-01, end 2026-11-02), which is the single most error-prone input in the schema.

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 ('Price a set of venues and dates') and immediately clarifies the non-committal nature of the result: it 'holds its price for 30 minutes (it does not hold the screens).' That behavioural distinction is what separates it from advertiser.bookings.create, so an agent can pick correctly without reading 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the price-check and 30-minute hold signal this is a pre-booking step, but the description never says 'use this before advertiser.bookings.create' or when not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. needing venue ids from venues.search) are given.

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