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

The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds critical behavior not in annotations: the quote is free, the price is firm, it expires after a few minutes, and it can be used only once. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before relying on it.

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 front-loaded with the key promise and constraints, then briefly annotates the two parameters. Every phrase carries information, with 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?

Because an output schema exists, return details need not be covered. The description does well on behavior and next-step integration, but it is weak on the required nested params object, which is a meaningful completeness gap for a tool taking arbitrary per-service inputs.

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 0%, so the description should clarify both parameters. It gives a useful example for service ('fr-suppliers') but only says params are 'selon input_schema', while the schema itself provides no property descriptions and allows arbitrary nested content. The required params object remains semantically opaque.

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 names the operation clearly as obtaining a free, firm-price quote for a service, and it explicitly distinguishes this from run_service by saying the quote is usable once with run_service via quote_id. An agent can tell what it creates and how it relates to the sibling tool without opening the schema.

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 states the quote is valid for a few minutes and usable only once with run_service (quote_id), which clearly frames this as a pre-execution step. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name all alternatives, but the context for calling it before run_service is strong.

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