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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description's 'Reads only; files nothing' restates rather than extends that. It does add genuinely new behavioral context by scoping what the returned schema documents, including the non-obvious MCP and A2A notes, which helps an agent decide whether the call is worth making.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return content, and the operational caveat ('Reads only; files nothing') placed last. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so by enumerating the schema's parts (request fields, response fields, MCP/A2A notes). With annotations covering safety and no parameters to document, the only minor gap is the absence of any hint about how the schema is structured or how large it may be.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level semantics are needed or missing.

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 (Return) and resource (the door's schema) and enumerates what the schema contains: quote-request fields, response fields, and MCP/A2A notes. It implies its distinction from file_quote_request with 'files nothing' but never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is present yet not fully explicit.

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 phrase 'Reads only; files nothing' points away from the write-oriented sibling file_quote_request, implying this is the discovery step before filing. However, it never states when to call this versus the sibling (e.g., 'call this first to learn the request shape'), leaving usage to inference.

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