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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds context annotations cannot express: the tool is invoked internally by the offer board, the board is already final for the current turn, and calling refine_quote as a workaround 'paints a duplicate board' — a side-effect warning that is genuinely valuable. It does not describe any return payload, which is the only real gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'INTERNAL' marker and the prohibition before the rationale. Nothing is padded, and each sentence changes agent behavior (don't call it; don't substitute refine_quote; here's why).

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the decisive context an agent needs — that this is an internal lifecycle call it should never make. Return-value detail is absent, but since the intended behavior is not to invoke it at all, that omission matters little.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Quote id the board is watching'), and the description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that. Per the rubric, a fully documented single parameter establishes a baseline of 3.

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 function — the offer board invokes this to refresh itself while vendors are still pricing a quote — which is more than a restatement of the name 'poll_quote'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling refine_quote by warning against using that as a substitute. It stops short of saying exactly what state the poll observes or returns, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

This is the strongest dimension: 'Never call this yourself' is an unambiguous when-not-to-use rule, and the description names the specific wrong alternative ('do not reach for refine_quote to look at it again') plus the reason (the board is already final for its turn). An agent has everything it needs to avoid a misuse.

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