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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and meets it: discloses a ~40s blocking behavior, the need for immediate invocation, and the lack of added value if board is already populated. It also implies the tool is safe to call without side effects, though not explicitly stating read-only.

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 dense sentences, each essential: condition+action, execution instructions, and a critical exclusion. Information is front-loaded with the primary purpose and constraint. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value ('full board of offers'), the expected wait time, and the exact preconditions. It is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter tool with clear behavior, and it positions itself against sibling tools without needing further context.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with 'Quote id from the still-quoting response', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no substantive parameter meaning beyond reinforcing 'just quote_id' and 'immediately', which are usage directives rather than semantic details.

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 uses a specific verb ('waits for... and returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('vendors' offers') and the trigger (empty board response). It sharply distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact condition under which this tool is used, unlike generic 'finalize' naming.

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 (only after an empty board response and told to call it), how to use (call immediately, with just quote_id, say nothing substantive), and when NOT to use (never on a response that already listed offers). This provides clear decision-making rules and practical timing guidance.

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