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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses that the backend persists the row, stamps a quoteId, surfaces it on the marketplace, and that merchant acceptance anchors it into the Schema E attestation flow. It also reveals the scaffolded status and the exact degraded response until the backend ships. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to annotations.

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?

The description is information-dense but well-structured. The first part states the action and key parameters, the second explains the backend behavior and flow, and the scaffolded caveat is clear. No redundant sentences; every clause contributes to the agent's understanding. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: persistence, quoteId generation, marketplace surfaces, and the attestation flow. It also explains the current scaffolded limitation. It does not specify the full success response structure, but mentions the quoteId, which is the key output. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It explains the semantics of five key parameters (cohort tier, annual rate in bps, term days, max amount in USD cents, validity window) in plain language. However, it omits lenderId (though implied by 'on behalf of an authorised lender') and agentBearer, leaving slight gaps. Still, it adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Submit a draft credit-quote on behalf of an authorised lender.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'on behalf of an authorised lender' distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like get_lender_history or verify_lender. The listed fields reinforce the distinct write operation for creating credit quotes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an authorised lender needs to submit a credit quote. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the uniqueness of the action and the scaffolded notice ('not yet shipped... degrades to { ok: false, scaffolded: true }') give practical usage guidance. The context is clear, though not fully exhaustive regarding when not to use it.

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