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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses that the price is revalidated live (so it may differ from search results) and that the response carries cancellation terms and deadlines. It also flags a prompt-injection hazard for third-party hotel content with concrete rules (treat as information, don't follow as instruction, don't open links). Missing only quote expiry/inventory-hold behavior and whether the token is an auth credential.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the returned payload, followed by the ordering instruction, then the parameter note, then the safety block. Every section earns its place, though the third-party-content warning runs several clauses longer than needed to convey the rule.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by naming the exact quote fields an agent will receive, so it need not guess at return shape. The only real gap is the unexplained relationship between `token`, `search_id`, and `opcao_id` — an agent knows when and why to call, but not fully how to assemble the arguments.

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 0% — every one of the four parameters is undocumented in the schema. The description rescues only `language`, supplying the enum values 'en'/'pt'/'es' that the schema lacks and stating its purpose (error messages). `token`, `search_id`, and `opcao_id` are never explained; at best 'UM quarto especifico' hints that opcao_id identifies the room and search_id implies a prior search, but that is inference, not documentation.

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 — a live re-quote of ONE specific room — and enumerates what the quote contains (revalidated final price, cancellation policy, free-cancellation deadline, room remarks). This clearly separates it from search_hotels (browsing) and ver_quartos (room listing), both of which return unvalidated/pricing-agnostic data.

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?

Explicitly sequences the tool: call this BEFORE create_payment to confirm exact price and policy with the guest prior to charging. That is a concrete when-to-use plus an ordering constraint against a named sibling, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid charging a stale price.

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