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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds a permission requirement, a pricing constraint ('Price must sit inside the listing's min/max band when one is set'), and a consequential side effect ('Starts the buyer's 24h acceptance SLA'). These are non-obvious behavioral details that help an agent understand the impact of calling the tool, even though it does not cover every post-submission behavior.

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 three compact sentences with no filler: purpose, prerequisite, and key consequence. The main verb and resource appear first, and every clause earns 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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: seller side, required permission, price-band constraint, and the buyer's acceptance SLA. It omits secondary details such as the success response shape or behavior if a quote already exists, but those are not necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, including price units and the listing price-band constraint. The tool description reinforces the price band and optionality of terms but does not add significant new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Seller-side: answer a quote request with a price (pence), ETA in minutes, and optional terms,' which clearly names the action, the seller-side context, and the core payload. It is distinguishable from accept/reject/withdraw quote tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with services_counter_quote, so sibling differentiation is mostly implicit.

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 states the seller-side context and requires the delegation's respond_quote action, which gives useful preconditions for use. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of services_counter_quote, services_accept_quote, or services_reject_quote, so usage boundaries are inferred rather than stated.

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