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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that pricing happens before work runs, the quote represents a maximum possible cost, and nothing is spent. These are useful safety and cost semantics, though details such as quote persistence or validity are not covered.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses each sentence to explain operations, conditional parameters, or cost behavior. There is no filler, despite the dense subject matter.

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?

It covers the central workflow and most conditional quoting behavior adequately for initial tool selection. For a complex ten-parameter tool with no output schema, though, the undocumented operation and parameters plus the missing relationship to authorization or quote-retrieval siblings leave notable gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully explains ast_hash, four operation values, parent_find_id, source_import_id, and source_row_ids. However, it omits the retained operation and gives no guidance for project_id, revision_id, minimum_units, requested_units, or selected_entity_ids.

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 opening sentence clearly states that the tool prices the reading identified by ast_hash before execution. The operation breakdown further clarifies its scope, although it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from get_capacity_quote or authorize_capacity_work.

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 concrete usage contexts for find, extend, add_facts, and refresh, including when parent_find_id is required and how to quote an imported list. It lacks explicit when-not guidance and does not explain the next step, such as authorizing quoted work.

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