hemmabo_booking_negotiate

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint: false, etc.) and provide little behavioral context. The description adds important behavioral traits: 'Writes a short-lived quote snapshot server-side,' 'Requires Authorization: Bearer token (MCP_API_KEY or OAuth),' and 'Rate-limited per token.' These go beyond annotations and clarify the tool's side effects and constraints. A minor deduction for not detailing what happens after the 15-minute lock expires.

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 sentences cover purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral notes in a natural order. No wasted words; each sentence serves a clear function. Front-loading the purpose makes the tool's function immediately clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 simple parameters, no output schema, but produces a time-bound quote), the description provides adequate context about when to use it, authorization, rate limiting, and side effects. It could mention what the response contains (e.g., a quote ID) but that is not critical for tool selection or invocation.

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 already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a binding price quote that locks the price for 15 minutes for configured non-VRP fallback checkout deployments.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with get_verified_stay_offer and specifying when not to use it (e.g., for VRP offers, verified-offer display).

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 states when to use: 'when no signed direct_booking_url is available and the user explicitly asks to lock a price.' Also clearly lists when not to use and directs to an alternative: 'Never use this for search, availability, VRP offers, rendering a stay-offer widget, or verified-offer display — use get_verified_stay_offer instead.' This provides comprehensive guidance.

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