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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it confirms no reservation or charge occurs despite wrapping POST /api/quote, and it enumerates the three eligibility gates that can block an order. The one unexplained trait is idempotentHint=false – the definition only hints ("right now") that prices/quotes may change between calls rather than saying so.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does and returns, then the no-side-effect guarantee, then coordinate conventions. Front-loaded purpose with zero filler, and the coordinate note is placed where an agent needs it before building areas.

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 output schema, the description correctly carries the return burden by naming both outputs – prices and an orderable verdict with reasons. It does not say how those results are shaped across multiple areas (per-area breakdown vs aggregate), which is the remaining gap for a batch-quote tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents rect/cells/color, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by supplying orientation semantics the schema lacks: x left-to-right, y top-to-bottom over 0..999, and the cell index formula y*1000 + x.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Price a selection of cells") and the exact decision returned (orderable: meets minimum, not reserved, not in image review). It is clearly separable from siblings create_order and get_order_status because it prices and evaluates without committing anything.

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?

"right now" plus "Nothing is reserved or charged" establishes this as the pre-flight quote step before create_order, giving clear usage context. It stops short of an explicit "use create_order instead when you want to actually buy" routing sentence.

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