Get cancellation quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important trait: this is a read-only simulation with no state change ('booking remains active'). It does not cover error behavior for an invalid reference, permission needs, or whether the quoted charge is guaranteed at cancellation time.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the non-destructive guarantee front-loaded in caps for emphasis. Nothing here is redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, and 'return the cancellation charge' hints at the return value despite no output schema. It could still say more about what the quote contains or how failures are reported.

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 100% for the single 'reference' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (the cancellation charge for a booking) and immediately scopes it as a simulation that does not cancel. This cleanly separates it from the sibling cancel_booking, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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 makes the usage context clear — this is the preview path, the booking stays active — which implies 'use before deciding to cancel'. It does not explicitly name cancel_booking as the alternative or state when a quote is unavailable, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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