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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is 'signed, 15-minute, scope-bound', 'Free and never spends funds', 'always free — no API key required', and enumerates return outputs. It does not describe rate limits, error behavior, or data retention, but for a no-annotation tool this is strong coverage.

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 sentences plus a short bracketed tag. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return values and cost assurance. There is no filler or repeated schema information.

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 lists the key return items (quoteToken, exact price, evidence boundary, authorization class, higher-tier handoffs) and connects the tool to run_power_screen. It could define terms like 'evidence boundary' or 'higher-tier handoffs' more precisely, but it gives enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds a useful constraint that inputs should be 'non-sensitive site and workload facts' and reinforces scope, but it does not explain individual parameters beyond the schema. This is a solid baseline given the coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a signed, 15-minute, scope-bound quote for EnergyAI's $1 Power Screen'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by naming the returned quoteToken as required by run_power_screen, so an agent can tell this is the prerequisite quoting tool rather than a generic quote or screen runner.

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 states a clear context: this tool produces the quoteToken needed by run_power_screen, and it is explicitly free and safe to call. However, it does not name any alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_quote_link instead), so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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