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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does well: it discloses the quote is free ('never spends funds', 'always free — no API key required'), time-bound ('15-minute'), and scope-bound, plus it lists the outputs. It does not mention potential persistence or external calls, but key behavioral facts are covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then output and cost/safety. It is appropriately sized, though there is slight redundancy between 'Free and never spends funds' and '[always free — no API key required]', which keeps it from a 5.

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, the description usefully enumerates return values (quoteToken, price, evidence boundary, authorization class, higher-tier handoffs) and key constraints (time-bound, free, no API key). Some terms like 'authorization class' and 'higher-tier handoffs' remain vague, but the agent has enough to call and interpret the result 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level constraint ('non-sensitive site and workload facts') and does not enrich individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('signed, 15-minute, scope-bound quote'), and scope ('EnergyAI’s $1 Power Screen'). It also distinguishes the deliverable from siblings by explicitly naming the required downstream token ('quoteToken required by run_power_screen'), making the tool's niche unmistakable.

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?

It clearly implies when to use the tool: when a quoteToken is needed before running run_power_screen, and it indicates the input domain ('non-sensitive site and workload facts'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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