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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it is non-binding, no charge occurs at this step, results arrive both via polling and by email. It does not discuss auth requirements, duplicate submissions, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then the follow-up workflow and the safety caveat. No filler and nothing repeats the schema or title verbatim.

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?

The lifecycle (submit, poll, email), the returned rfq_id, and the non-binding/no-charge guarantee cover the highest-risk unknowns for a write-style call, and no output schema means explaining returns is unnecessary. However, for an 8-parameter tool with 38% schema coverage, the description leaves several inputs unexplained.

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 only 38% and the description adds essentially no parameter meaning: it mentions the parts list and buyer_email only incidentally and says nothing about company, needed_by, ship_to_zip, contact_name, or account_number. With a low-coverage schema, the description should have compensated here and does not.

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 and resource ('Submits a parts list for a wholesale quote') plus the concrete artifact returned ('returns an rfq_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings get_quote and get_order and the follow-on accept_quote.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly to the next step and sibling: 'Poll get_quote(rfq_id) until status is ready'. That is a strong when/what-next signal. It stops short of a stateable exclusion or an explicit condition for choosing this over any other entry point, so it is not a full 5.

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