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

Strong disclosure beyond the annotations: a third-party upload to DirectMailAmerica for live pricing, no charge or mailing despite destructiveHint=true, a 36-hour hold with expiresAt, a 25 MiB artwork cap, and staging quotes being demo estimates. What is missing is failure behavior (what happens when a page fails the dimension check, whether a quote record persists) and any auth/workspace-key requirement detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the expiration contract before descending into postcard minutiae, and the approval warning closes it well. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, with the two-sided postcard rule stated twice (once in prose, once again in the schema), costing a little tightness.

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 12-parameter, nested-object, mutation-shaped tool, the description covers the hard-to-guess parts (artwork dimensions, double-sided assembly, size limits, demo-vs-live quotes) and an output schema covers the return value. The gap is the untouched optional parameters (envelope, return receipt, paper) that an agent may need to set for a correct quote.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description does real work: it explains the productId dimension constraint, the doubleSided + pro_postcard_85x55 combination, the reverseMessage OR reverseArtworkBase64 exclusivity, and the combined size limit. Still, several parameters — returnEnvelope, electronicReturnReceipt, paper, filename — are left undocumented in both schema and description, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (hold a quote), the exact resource (expanded-product quote), the constraints (workspace key, print-ready PDF, 1–100 US recipients) and the outcome (expiresAt). The contrast with siblings is explicit enough: 'no charge or mailing' plus 'before sending' clearly separates it from send_product_quote, and the artwork/pricing language separates it from get_product_quote.

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?

'Obtain approval of artwork, addresses and total before sending' positions this as a pre-send step, and 'Staging quotes are demo estimates' tells the agent the quote is non-binding. However, it never names an alternative tool (preview_product_quote, get_product_quote, quote_letter) or states when a different quoting path should be used, so the agent must infer the choice from sibling names.

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