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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide – no mention of rate limits, external service requirements, or response characteristics for this informational read.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core value (cost) and efficiently covers fit and ordering in few words. Slightly vague but no wasted text.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what information is actually returned (e.g., generic pricing tiers, sizing guidance, or ordering steps). 'What fits and how ordering works' is suggestive but leaves the return content ambiguous for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 states the resource (printed plate) and the information provided (cost, fit, ordering process). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like print_plate_checkout and print_plate_status by being a quote/info tool, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied – get a quote before ordering – via the phrase 'how ordering works'. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus print_plate_checkout, print_plate_status, or ship_quote, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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