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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the specific behavioral point that this tool does not generate, and clarifies that the hasStyleRef flag relates to a future generation step. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, the key exclusion is second, and the only parameter condition is included concisely.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only quote tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and when to set the lone parameter. Nothing essential 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%, so the schema already documents hasStyleRef. The description restates the condition in imperative form ('Pass hasStyleRef true...') but adds little beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not introduce new semantic meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Quote') and resource ('Ad Lab Explain film'), and explicitly clarifies that it 'Does not generate.' This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling generate_ad_explain and other generation tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is not for generation, which implicitly tells an agent when not to use it. It also references generate_ad_explain in the parameter guidance, providing workflow context. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use generate_ad_explain when generation is needed,' but the guidance is sufficient.

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