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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds that it claims a 30-minute hold and does not create a contract or authorize payment. No contradiction with annotations. Could mention side effects like reducing quote availability.

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 sentences, no redundancy. Critical information is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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?

Description covers core behavior and constraints but lacks details on error states, version mismatch handling, or what happens if hold fails. For a tool with 5 required params and side effects, more context could improve completeness.

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 has 5 required params but description coverage is 0%. The description only indirectly explains acceptanceConfirmed via 'explicit customer confirmation.' No explanation for quoteId, sessionToken, idempotencyKey, or expectedQuoteVersion. The schema's const acceptanceConfirmed and DateTime pattern for version are not detailed.

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 states the tool accepts a quote and claims a 30-minute availability hold. It explicitly distinguishes from creating/signing contracts or authorizing payment. The verb 'accept' and resource 'quote' are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 description mentions 'with explicit customer confirmation,' indicating when to use. It implies this should be called after customer confirms, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, it provides enough context relative to sibling tools like quotes.create and quotes.get.

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