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

Annotations already indicate mutation/destructive/external effects, but the description goes far beyond: it details the double opt-in flow, states that no lead exists and no merchant is contacted until confirmation, explains the statuses returned ('confirmation_required', 'awaiting_confirmation', 'received'), and clarifies that a later call with the same arguments is required. This rich behavioral context is essential for correct invocation and is not contradicted by annotations.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the critical two-step flow, then merchant routing. No filler, front-loaded with the core action, and structured logically. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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's complexity (multi-step, double opt-in, special routing case) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all operational details: the status flow, the need for a second call, and the merchant routing rules. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and the output schema presumably covers return format.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'merchant' parameter (source via list_merchants, and the special 'airshelf-network' plus brandSlug combination) and clarifies that products are catalog slugs. This extra guidance for two parameters raises the score above baseline.

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+resource: 'Send a quote request for catalog products to a merchant's sales team on behalf of a named buyer.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_catalog or list_merchants, which are about discovery, not requests. The special 'airshelf-network' routing clause further sharpens the scope.

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?

It gives clear actionable guidance: merchant slugs come from list_merchants, and explains the fallback mechanism for network-catalog brands. It also describes the two-step double opt-in flow, telling the agent what to expect on first call vs subsequent calls. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the sibling set has no overlapping tool, so this is adequate.

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