quote_cancellation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false; the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing' and adds useful nuance about refund_to having cash vs airline credit options. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

One concise sentence delivers the core operation and the critical no-side-effect guarantee. Every word adds value, and the most important distinguishing trait, 'Changes nothing', is placed at the end where it still strongly registers.

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 read-only quote tool with a single order_id parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It would benefit from an explicit pointer to confirm_cancellation for the actual cancellation, but an agent can call it correctly with the current text.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the required order_id parameter or how to provide it. The mention of refund_amount and refund_to appears to describe outputs, not inputs, so the description adds no parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation as pricing (not executing) a cancellation, naming the key returned fields refund_amount and refund_to. The phrase 'Changes nothing' and the contrast with sibling confirm_cancellation distinguish it from actual cancellation tools.

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 gives clear context: this tool only calculates a cancellation price and has no side effects. However, it never explicitly names an alternative like confirm_cancellation or states the exact condition for choosing this tool, so guidance remains implicit rather than fully explicit.

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