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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantive work: it discloses the two-phase quote/approve flow, explicitly states "No automatic upgrade", and restricts use to owners. It does not describe return values or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are present.

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 four short sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes either the resource, the workflow, the safety guardrail, or the permission requirement.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main quote-and-approve flow and the owner gate. It lacks explicit sibling alternatives and a clear statement of what the tool returns, but it is otherwise sufficient for basic invocation.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds workflow context around approval and confirmation, but no per-parameter specifics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

"Quote additional app storage" is a specific verb and resource, and "No automatic upgrade" plus "Owners only" help distinguish it from billing or top-up tools. However, no sibling tool is named, so the agent must infer when capacity is the right choice rather than prices, billing, or topup.

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 gives eligibility and workflow context ("Owners only", "get owner approval before confirming") but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like billing, prices, or topup. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative routing.

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