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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant billing semantics — one credit from an account cap, completed rejection reports are billable, platform failures release the credit — which is exactly the kind of cost consequence an agent needs before invoking a destructive, credit-consuming call.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the billing consequence second. No filler; the only weakness is that efficiency comes at the cost of omitting prerequisites and retry behavior.

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 destructive, credit-consuming mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the definition omits what the caller should do next (get_supplier_import status polling), what state is affected, and how idempotency manifests on retries. The billing disclosure is good but leaves major gaps for a write operation.

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 both parameters are required, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It says nothing about quote_id's origin/format or what idempotency_key must guarantee on retry, leaving both undocumented in schema and prose.

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 action ("Start the quoted evaluation") that clearly pairs with the sibling quote_supplier_import and distinguishes it from get_/list_/preview_ siblings. It does not explicitly name the supplier-feed resource, but the verb-plus-quote framing is unambiguous enough to select the tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says this must follow quote_supplier_import, that quote_id comes from a prior quote, or when to prefer preview_supplier_feed instead. The implication is inferable from "quoted" but never stated.

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