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

With annotations covering safety (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, non-destructive), the description goes further and discloses the two-phase confirmation contract plus response field semantics that exist nowhere in the schema: the 'requested' boolean gates the whole action, 'reason' explains refusals, and 'status' is the resulting intent. It also documents the stale_confirmation failure mode and the recovery path, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent act correctly.

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 front-loaded with the action and then the protocol, with no filler sentences. However, one clause ('Nothing is requested unless requested comes back true; reason says why not, and status is the intent after the call') is densely packed and relies on response-field names the agent has no schema for, which slightly muddies readability.

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 required-parameter write tool with a nested confirmation object and no output schema, the description adequately covers the confirmation workflow, the success gate, and one error path. It is thin on the origin of intentId, on retry/idempotency expectations, and on whether other error codes exist, which keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 67% and already documents token, customerReply, and idempotencyKey, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'pass its token and their exact reply' largely repeats the schema wording for those nested fields and adds nothing about intentId (the required upstream id) or the idempotencyKey, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 first sentence, "Request quotes," simply restates the name and title and never says what a quote is or how this differs from siblings like jerry_get_quotes or jerry_request_final_price. The remainder of the text describes the confirmation protocol rather than the tool's purpose, so an agent still cannot tell from the description alone which quote tool to pick.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite sequence: the request needs the confirmation produced by the status tool, you must show its summary, obtain the customer's explicit yes, then supply the token and reply. It also gives conditional guidance for the stale_confirmation case (show the new confirmation and ask again), though it never explicitly names jerry_get_status or states when to prefer this over other quote tools.

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