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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the 10-minute price lock, per-eSIM purchase on claim, 30-day refund of unclaimed links to the paying wallet, and that quoting itself is free. These are the exact consequences an agent needs before committing a user to a batch.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and limits, and every sentence carries operational weight (price lock, refund policy, payment path, limits). It is a dense single block, though, and the payment-path and limit details could be split or ordered slightly more cleanly.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description tells the agent exactly what comes back (a quoteId) and how to consume it (`buy` or the human /pay page). For a quote-then-pay flow with a mutation, the behavioral and procedural picture is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: `count` maps to one link per person subject to the per-order and batch ($100 default) limits, and `offerId` must come from `list_offers type=esim`. It does not separately explain `payer` or `note`, but those are self-documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource class (lock a price / quote for a BATCH of travel eSIMs) and the 'BATCH, N claim links' framing makes it distinguishable from the single-item `quote` and from `buy` without opening any schema. An agent can immediately tell this is the group-quoting entry point.

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 names concrete use cases (group trip, conference delegation, event giveaways) and routes explicitly to the alternatives: 'Pay the returned quoteId with `buy`, or send the human to /pay/?mode=vouchers'. It also states the hard limits (2–50 eSIMs, per-order and batch limits) and an operational rule: 'ALWAYS show the human the total and the count before buying.'

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