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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description enriches them with concrete behavioral details: the tool creates a quote request, triggers a quote.requested event on the seller side and a quote.sent event back, returns a quote_id and status, and echoes brief under _untrusted. It also discloses failure modes (conflict/not_quotable) and the API key requirement. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully informs the agent of side effects and reply expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, applicability conditions, error cases, parameter guidance, event flow, and reply structure are all covered in about 150 words. It is front-loaded with the core action and condition, and uses compact formatting (backticks, semicolons) to maximize information density without padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: 'Reply: quote_id, status: requested, your brief and terms echoed (brief under _untrusted)'. It also covers the full workflow (events, quoting path, interaction with seller's agent via quote_url), prerequisites (API key), and error conditions. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some meaning beyond schema: it explains that listing_id must reference a quotable listing, that budget_usdc and deadline are optional terms, and that brief is limited to 4000 chars. However, most parameter-level details are already in the schema (brief, deadline, budget_usdc, idempotency_key), and the description does not substantially clarify the undocumented listing_id beyond its role in quotable listings. Thus a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'send a brief to a listing that quotes per job'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by contrasting it with buying hosted/priced listings ('is bought, not commissioned') and naming related tools sendQuote and getQuote as the seller's response and quote retrieval. An agent immediately knows what this tool does and how it differs from nearby alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Works on listings with no fixed price, a quote_url, or delivery: "a2a"' and when not to: 'a hosted file or a priced url/mcp listing is bought, not commissioned — conflict / not_quotable'. It also names the alternative workflow (buy instead) and how results flow through sendQuote/getQuote, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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