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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond that. It discloses the refusal contract ("refuses rather than guesses"), the structured-error and needs_human_review statuses with concrete triggers (curved walls, headers over 12 ft, cantilevered storey), the fact that pricing/tonnage/routing come from Gage API v1 rather than this tool, and that panelization output is preliminary and unstamped. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before committing a submission.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, required inputs, return shape, and failure semantics in a logical order. It is longer than average but every block earns its place — the refusal and human-review paragraphs materially change how an agent should behave. No filler or repetition.

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 detail return values, yet it still frames them at the right level (feasibility flag, itemized quote, panel package). Combined with the annotations covering safety and the schema covering field-level structure, an agent has everything needed to decide to call this tool and interpret its outcomes.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0% for the three parameters (design, project, options), so the description must carry weight — and it does, summarizing the required inputs as structured geometry (levels, walls as start/end points, openings, roof) plus build-site ZIP and project type. It does not cover defaults, units, or option flags such as stud_spacing_in or max_panel_length_ft, so it adds meaning without fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: submit a building design and receive a real CFS framing quote from the Gage fabricator network. It also enumerates the outputs (feasibility flag, itemized quote, panelization package), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish this from the near-identically-named sibling quote_my_building, leaving that routing decision to inference.

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?

"Use this when you have generated or been given a floor plan or 3D house model and need to know what it costs to frame in steel" gives a clear triggering condition. The description also states when the tool will not produce a quote (invalid geometry, needs_human_review cases), which is useful negative guidance. It never names or excludes the sibling tools, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative dimension is only partially covered.

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