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

Beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses real behavioral traits: it consumes one quote allowance (a cost), idempotencyKey should be reused for retries, it returns a browser checkout link, and individual-part update plus checkout are blocked. These are exactly the side-effect and limitation details an agent needs.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence carries information (scope, cost, retry key, return, blocked actions). The telegraphic phrasing is slightly choppy, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a mutating tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites (reviewed revision), cost, retry semantics, and blocked follow-ups, so an agent can call it correctly. It could still be improved by explicitly naming the prerequisite tool and whether an access token/session is required.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: the configuration/revision must be the exact customer-reviewed complete set and reviewedRevision is the value returned by preparation. This clarifies the semantics of the required parameters beyond the schema's field-level docs.

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 names a specific verb (quote) and resource (matched lower/upper stamping dies) and scopes it to the approved print process, which cleanly separates it from prepare_stamping and the other quote_* siblings. An agent can identify the action and artifact without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context that this quotes the exact customer-reviewed configuration and revision as one complete set, and that simulation is not exposed, implying it is the real (non-simulated) quoting path. It stops short of explicitly naming the prerequisite tool (prepare_stamping) or stating when not to use it versus alternatives.

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