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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds real context beyond that: a consumed quote allowance, idempotencyKey reuse for retries, and the clarification that reviewConfirmed does not authorize checkout. The return-value note (browser link) is less additive here because an output schema already exists.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying an independent constraint: purpose, prerequisite, quota, retry, checkout boundary. No filler, and the purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded ahead of the exclusion.

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 prerequisite chain, quota consumption, idempotent retry behavior, and the checkout boundary, and an output schema exists to carry return details. For a consequential write tool with a deeply nested parameter object, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning: it frames reviewedRevision/reviewConfirmed as an explicit human review gate and explains idempotencyKey as the retry key. It stops short of describing the large geometry parameters object, so it does not fully exploit the parameter surface.

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 verb and resource ('Quote one complete enclosure base and lid, with configured hardware') and ties it to the prepare_enclosure workflow, which cleanly separates it from quote_gripper, quote_stamping, and quote_workholding. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the sibling schemas.

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 an explicit precondition ('after the customer reviews the exact prepare_enclosure revision') and an explicit exclusion ('do not use single-part checkout or update tools for these parts'). Both the when and the when-not are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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