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

Annotations mark it non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral fact: by default nothing is sent, and only send=true dispatches a real request to Corbah. It also discloses what the returned estimate means (a ceiling at Corbah's current store prices) and that Jon quotes the final team price, though it doesn't discuss idempotency or duplicate-send risk.

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 dense sentences that front-load the purpose and then the return payload and the send branch. Every clause carries information, though the middle of the second sentence packs several return items that could read more cleanly.

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 takes on the return-value burden: order summary, price estimate with its ceiling behavior, artwork approval deadline, and next steps. It also notes reply_to is needed when send=true. It doesn't cover behavior when no inputs are supplied (zero required parameters) or error paths, leaving a small gap.

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 91%, so the schema already documents almost every parameter, including the send flag, design enum, piece keys and nested object. The description reinforces but rarely exceeds that (e.g. 'optional size split'), so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Plan and price custom kit for a club or team') and enumerates the exact inputs it captures (riders, pieces, optional size split, needed-by date). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like commission_design and browse_catalog, which handle design work and catalog browsing respectively.

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 context for use — a team/club wanting a quote — and, crucially, explains the send=true vs default branch ('otherwise nothing is sent'). It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g. commission_design for artwork-only work), so the agent must infer routing.

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