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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'revalidates' the final price and returns cancellation details, implying it's a read-only/verification step rather than a charging operation. It also states it should be used 'before charging', which signals no direct financial side effect. However, it omits potential behaviors like rate limits or authorization requirements, but these are not critical for a quote function.

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?

The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second providing essential workflow context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, usage timing, and return fields, but it leaves out parameter semantics entirely, which is a significant gap given three required parameters and no output schema. An agent would need to infer token, search_id, and opcao_id from context or other tools, making the description adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema lists token, search_id, and opcao_id with no descriptions, and the description provides no explanations for these parameters. It only vaguely alludes to a specific room via 'UM quarto especifico', which could map to opcao_id, but token and search_id remain unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, making it hard to know what values to provide.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a live quote for one specific room, listing the specific data it returns (final price, cancellation policy, free cancellation deadline, room observations). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_payment by explicitly mentioning it should be called before charging, making its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Chame isso antes de create_payment' (call this before create_payment) to confirm exact price and policy before charging. This gives a clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the payment tool.

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