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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent and closed-world. The description adds real context beyond that: the result is sampled/approximate, it includes a full-report layout, and it is a confirmation step rather than an order. It does not say what persistent side effect justifies readOnlyHint=false, nor anything about cost or repeat-call semantics.

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, front-loaded with what is produced; no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

Six parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and a non-read-only tool with unanswered questions (what gets persisted, what the sampled answer looks like, how completeness and layout_objective change the result). For this complexity the description is too thin to let an agent call it confidently.

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 only 50%: tool_names, completeness and layout_objective have no schema descriptions, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. Apart from echoing that timing comes from path_resolver (already stated in resolution_id's schema text), it adds nothing about how to populate the six parameters.

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?

Conveys that this produces a sampled/rough preview answer plus a report layout for confirmation, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never states a clean verb+resource and doesn't distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like adjust_estimate, review_estimate, or path_answer.

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 phrase 'for the person to confirm before anything is ordered' implies the right moment to call it (a pre-commitment preview), and the time reference points at path_resolver. But it gives no explicit when-not and does not route the agent to or away from adjust_estimate/review_estimate, which are the obvious alternatives.

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