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

Annotations declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds critical context beyond them: the quote is time-limited (15 minutes), it performs no charge, and a purchase requires operator approval in the hosted checkout. This unauthored safety/expiry detail is exactly the value annotations cannot carry.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the artifact and its constraints are front-loaded before the disambiguating no-charge note.

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?

Covers the artifact, expiry, no-charge behavior, and approval flow for a two-param read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. Only minor gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing guidance.

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%, so the schema already documents both capability and evaluation_id formats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond noting the checkout link, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific artifact (signed 15-minute price quote) plus the deliverable (hosted checkout link), distinct from siblings like get_capability or evaluate_capability. An agent knows exactly what this returns.

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?

Implied usage via the evaluation_id param ('if you evaluated first'), suggesting the evaluate_capability → get_quote flow, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements or named alternatives among the nine siblings.

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