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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: what the response contains (supplier cost, VIA margin, total), that no wallet signature or payment is required, and that the result carries ok/executionEnabled gates an agent must check. Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, so this is a solid supplement rather than a full disclosure (no mention of quote expiry, error behavior, or bind 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the safety/eligibility constraint. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does name the key fields plus the ok/executionEnabled gates and the no-payment guarantee. It is nearly complete for a read-only quote; the main omission is anything about quote validity/lifetime or the meaning of a failed quote.

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?

The description never mentions task, maxUsdc, or orderId, so it adds nothing to what the schema documents. With schema coverage at 67% and a non-obvious param (private client UUID for retry/recovery) described only in the schema, the description should have explained that orderId is unnecessary for a quote—it does not.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('quote for the VIA toll') and describes the sourcing rule (VIA-owned delivery first, eligible paid supplier otherwise). It implicitly separates itself from execution siblings like via_one_call by being the free preflight, though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

Gives an explicit gating rule: 'Continue only if ok and executionEnabled are true', which tells the agent exactly when to proceed versus stop. It also signals this is a no-cost, no-signature step, implying it precedes payment/execution. It stops short of naming the follow-up tool or listing when-not-to-use cases.

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