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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the request is non-binding, no charge occurs, an rfq_id is returned, and the quote is emailed to buyer_email asynchronously. It omits the notable non-idempotent trait (resubmitting likely mints a new RFQ), which would be worth stating.

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, no filler, and the most important fact (async polling via get_quote) is front-loaded right after the core action. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the async lifecycle, the return handle, and the safety profile (non-binding, no charge) — enough to call it correctly. The gap is the near-empty parameter explanation, which leaves the 38%-covered schema to stand alone.

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%, so the description must carry more weight, yet it explains no parameters except implying buyer_email receives the quote. It says nothing about the lines array shape, quantity/unit semantics, needed_by format, or why account_number matters for repeat-customer recognition.

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') and names its output artifact (rfq_id). It also explicitly routes to the sibling get_quote for the follow-up step, so an agent can distinguish it from accept_quote and the read tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: this is the entry step, then 'Poll get_quote(rfq_id) until status is ready'. It names the alternative tool and the completion condition, though it never states when not to use this (e.g., when a quote already exists) or how it relates to accept_quote.

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