quote_order_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Changes nothing' explicitly states it's non-mutating, and the sign convention for change_total_amount (>0 means traveler pays, <0 means refund) is disclosed. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact: one main sentence plus two bullet points. The key behavioral fact ('Changes nothing') is front-loaded, and the bullet points are informative without being verbose. Slightly more structure could help, but it's efficient and every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema (which likely documents change_total_amount), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers the key behavioral nuance (non-mutating, sign convention, defaults). It's complete enough for an agent to call this correctly, though it could mention that this is a quote and not a confirmation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of change_total_amount (though that's not a parameter in the schema, it's likely in the output) and notes that origin/destination default to the booking's own. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of order_id, departure_date, or cabin_class beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Price') and resource ('moving an existing one-way booking to other flights on a date'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quote_cancellation or confirm_order_change. It could be slightly clearer that it's a quote/price estimation rather than a booking change, but the verb 'Price' and the readOnly annotation help.

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 implies this is for pricing a change to other flights on a date, and the sibling list includes confirm_order_change for the actual change. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs confirm_order_change or search_alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an order_id. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit guidance is missing.

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