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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, not idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: a 10-minute expiry window and the cost model (one credit for completed blocks/warnings, free for errors/platform failures, $20/100). It omits what happens when a quote expires or whether re-quoting is free, but the billing and expiry disclosures are substantive and non-obvious.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the pricing rule, then the negative scope. No filler or repetition, and each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a quote returns (an opaque quote token, a price, an expiry timestamp) and how to hand it to the follow-up call. It also leaves the free-vs-charged boundary at the level of 'blocks/warnings' rather than saying what causes them, which is thin for a billing-affecting tool.

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 there are three parameters, including an optional nullable baseline_id, so the description carries the full burden. Its phrases 'exact approved versions' and 'original SHA256' loosely gesture at baseline_id and the file upload, but it never maps upload_id, contract_id, or baseline_id to what they mean or whether baseline_id is optional.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Quote one entire-file check') plus the scope ('entire-file') and what is pinned into the quote (exact approved versions, original SHA256). The final sentence 'Does not start work' separates it from the start_quality_check sibling, so an agent can pick between the two without reading either schema.

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?

Implies a clear flow: get a quote here, then the work happens elsewhere ('Does not start work'), and it flags the 10-minute expiry so the agent knows the quote is short-lived. It never explicitly names start_quality_check or states the prerequisite relationship, so routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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