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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well: it signals a paid one-time execution ($1.00/call), immediate results, and an immutable artifact hash. It does not fully state side effects like quote consumption or persistence, but the provided details go well beyond a bare 'rund' call.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and object, then packs the return value highlights and pricing with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lists return categories, indicates immediacy, and mentions cost and quote provenance. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could more explicitly state side effects such as consuming the quote or persisting an artifact.

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%, and both parameters are richly described: apiKey explains its credential-bridge purpose and stripping behavior, and quoteToken explains provenance, expiry, and binding semantics. The tool description itself adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Execute'), a specific resource ('one signed Power Screen quote'), and enumerates the return payload ('modeled constraint decision, assumptions, evidence gaps, and immutable artifact hash'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_power_service_quote, which creates the quote rather than executing it.

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 and quoteToken schema make the expected workflow clear: first obtain a signed quote via get_power_service_quote, then run it here before the 15-minute expiry. It provides clear context for when the tool applies, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.