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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is to detail side effects. It does so extensively: triggers a quote.requested event, the seller replies via sendQuote, the response includes quote_id/status and echoes the brief under _untrusted. It also discloses idempotency-key behavior via schema, and the description covers conflict/error conditions.

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 long but every sentence carries information: purpose, eligibility, edge cases, event flow, and reply format. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds necessary conditional logic. No filler; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by stating the reply structure (quote_id, status, brief under _untrusted). It covers prerequisites (API key), error cases (conflict/not_quotable/unsupported_network), alternative flows, and parameter constraints. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description restates optionality (brief ≤4000 chars, optional budget_usdc and deadline) and clarifies that listing_id is required, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The one uncovered parameter (listing_id) is self-evident from its name and context.

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 precise verb–resource pair: 'send a brief to a listing that quotes per job.' It explicitly scopes what qualifies (no fixed price, quote_url, delivery 'a2a') and what does not (hosted file, priced url/mcp), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like sendQuote (seller reply) and getQuote (read).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions: listings that are bought vs commissioned, plus conflict and unsupported_network edge cases. It also names the alternative flow (buy, ask) and the follow-up tools (getQuote) without ambiguity.

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