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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only that the tool is a legacy alias, but does not describe any side effects, permissions, or operational behavior. The word 'alias' hints at identical behavior to request_service, but the actual consequences of invoking it are not disclosed.

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 one compact sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the tool's legacy status and the preferred alternative, making every word earn 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?

As a legacy alias, the description adequately serves as a redirect to request_service, which is a sibling and presumably documents full behavior. The parameter details are available in the schema, and the deprecation guidance is complete. However, it lacks a direct functional description, which would make it self-contained.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the four required parameters. The description mentions no parameter meanings, types, or usage context, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 it is a 'Legacy alias for request_service,' which implies it performs the same function as request_service but never explicitly says 'submits a quote request.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming request_service as the preferred alternative, but the lack of a direct verb and resource makes the purpose somewhat vague.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer request_service for new clients,' which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool only for legacy clients and which alternative to use. This is direct, actionable usage guidance with an explicit alternative named.

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