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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write, so the description's job is to add context. It does: 'A person reads every request before anything is priced' discloses the human-in-the-loop review gate, and the export_controlled note states the concrete consequence (no file link, no files or controlled detail transmitted until a controlled channel is arranged). It does not address duplicate filings/idempotency, so it is not exhaustive.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the shop identity and accepted job types come first, then the two behaviorally significant flag semantics. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 14-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the two non-obvious flags and the human review process, and the files schema field explains where the file-sending instructions arrive in the answer. Missing pieces are minor: turnaround expectations and what happens after the request is filed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters in detail. The description's notes on review_only and export_controlled largely restate what the schema descriptions already say, adding only slight reinforcement rather than new syntax, formats, or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('File a quote request with Cyclone Machining Co.') and immediately scopes the work types accepted (prototypes, first articles, one-offs, revisions, replacement parts, small runs). An agent knows exactly what this tool submits and to whom; the only sibling, get_door_schema, is unrelated so no differentiation burden exists.

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 tells the agent which job types belong here and when to set review_only (free review, no quote) versus a normal quote filing. It gives clear positive conditions but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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