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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the price formula (nearest standard size scaled by area plus cutting supplement, rounded up), the simulation-first behavior, the Romanian output text, and the conditional proforma creation when customer data is supplied. It stops short of stating permissions or side effects for the invoicing account, but annotations already establish that this is non-readonly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the description is compact, but the long parenthetical pricing formula makes it dense. The trailing fragments "Simulated first. Works on: Support desk." are useful but slightly choppy in structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, and the description covers key computation behavior. However, for a tool with 11 parameters, a nested customer object, and low schema coverage, the missing parameter meanings leave an agent with material gaps before invocation.

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 only 18%, with just account and sku_prefix described. The description hints at area-based pricing and customer-triggered proforma creation, but does not explain the roles of width_cm, length_cm, height_cm, vat_percent, shop_account, invoicing_account, with_proforma, or thread_id, leaving most of the 11 parameters ambiguous.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as generating a custom-size mattress quote from the configurator, naming the concrete outputs: price, delivery term, proforma, and Romanian quote text. It is distinguishable from sibling invoicing and order tools, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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?

"Simulated first" and "Works on: Support desk" provide useful context about the workflow and supported channel. However, there are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions relative to siblings such as invoices_issue or offers_create.

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