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

Given no annotations, the description discloses it does not price or submit, clarifying it is a validation-only tool. It does not describe side effects or auth needs, but for a simple validation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words; each sentence adds unique value.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description does not specify the output format (e.g., returns validation errors or boolean). For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent should expect as a result.

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 single parameter 'lines' has a rich schema with descriptions for each property, covering over 80% of schema description coverage. The description adds no further detail on parameters, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Checks' and the resource 'quote lines', specifying it looks for missing identifiers and ambiguous substitution instructions. The title adds 'before quoting', distinguishing it from siblings like submit_quote_request.

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?

The description implies usage before quoting but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings. No alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned, relying on the title and sibling names for context.

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