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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses the resolution of defaults/exclusions/dependencies, the valid=false contract, and the concrete error codes (unknown_option, dependency_unmet) and warning code (exclusive_conflict) that make the result actionable.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior (resolves defaults/exclusions/dependencies) and then the return contract. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it usefully summarizes them. Combined with the annotations, an agent knows this is a safe, repeatable pre-flight check. The one missing piece is the relationship to quote_configuration, which matters given the overlapping price output.

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 reported at 0%, and the description compensates for none of it: the top-level 'lang' parameter is never mentioned, and neither 'configuration', 'options' nor 'engraving' is explained in the description text (only the nested schema does that). An agent gets no semantic help from the description on how to shape the input.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (validate/resolve a configuration) and enumerates what it returns: resolved defaults, errors, warnings, selections and total price. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling quote_configuration, which plausibly also returns a price — the agent has to guess the boundary between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this before create_order, nor how it differs from quote_configuration or describe_model. The only routing signal is implicit in the error/warning vocabulary.

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