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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds latency (~40s wait), the async nature (awaits vendor answers), the result shape (full board), and even a conversational constraint ('say nothing substantive before it'). It discloses behavioral traits well beyond the annotations and is fully consistent with them.

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?

Front-loads the ONLY precondition, then the wait/return behavior, then the NEVER exclusion. Three tight clauses, no filler, each earning 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers precondition, timing, return content, and invocation style. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single documented parameter, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description reinforces the call shape ('Call with just quote_id') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high 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?

States a specific verb+resource (waits for remaining vendors and returns their offers as a full board), and the empty-board precondition cleanly separates it from siblings like poll_quote and preview_quote. An agent knows exactly what this does and when it applies without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('ONLY for the case where a quote response came back with an EMPTY board and told you to call this') and when-not-to-use ('NEVER call it on a response that already listed offers — that board is final'). Both directions and the triggering signal are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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