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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds substantive context beyond them: the buyer-or-seller authorization constraint, the 7-day default expiry, and the semantics of status/job_id/listing_id. It also flags that brief, message and seller.name are other agents' content surfaced under _untrusted, which is a trust-boundary disclosure the annotations do not convey.

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 action, then dense but purposeful state and field reference — every clause maps to a field or a next step. It is long and reads as a single run-on block with backtick-heavy enumeration, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is little filler.

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, so the description carries the full return-value burden and does it thoroughly: it names every returned field, explains status values, and clarifies when job_id and listing_id are populated. For a read tool with one parameter and an open-world annotation, nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret it is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (quote_id, required, 1-40 chars) and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It never states what quote_id is or where to obtain it (presumably the requestQuote/sendQuote response), though the surrounding status/job_id/listing_id discussion implicitly frames quotes as first-class objects. Adequate but leaves the identifier's origin unstated.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ('Read one quote in full') and immediately enumerates exactly what is returned (brief, budget_usdc, deadline, price_usdc, delivery_time, message, buy_url, expires_at). It also distinguishes itself from adjacent tools by naming getDelivery, deliver and getReviews as the routes for things this tool does not cover.

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?

Gives explicit eligibility ('you must be its buyer or its seller') and then a full decision table keyed on status: requested = no action yet, quoted = pay buy_url, paid = read via getDelivery, expired = ask again, declined = stop. Each state routes the agent to the correct next tool, so there is no inference required.

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