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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description complements this by explaining the dual behavior: exact quotes vs. estimates with disclaimers. The description adds context about the estimate fallback mechanism that the annotations don't capture. Slight deduction because it doesn't explain when a configured price might not be found or if this affects rate limits, but overall strong.

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?

Three sentences total: states what it does, explains the estimate/exact distinction, and gives usage triggers. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

For a read-only quote tool with an output schema and clear inputs, this is well-covered. It explains the key behavior (exact vs. estimate) and when to use it. Slight gap: it could mention what happens when the business doesn't provide a price at all, and it doesn't explicitly exclude use cases like booking confirmations (handled by confirm_booking).

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions for slug, service, and params. The description's mention of 'service' and 'business' adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Quote'), names the resource ('price for a service at a business'), and adds valuable nuance by distinguishing exact quotes from estimates. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_availability and search_businesses, which could otherwise be confused with it.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks "how much does X cost?" or "what's the price for Y?"', giving clear trigger examples. It also contrasts with siblings by implying this is the pricing-specific tool, and the mention of estimates indicates when not to expect an exact price.

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