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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the frozen A/B/C snapshot behavior, that historical accepted orders retain their snapshots, and that the operation confers no payment/booking/cancellation authority. These are meaningful behavioral traits not expressible through annotations, though the phrasing is dense.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good structure. But four sentences of undefined domain jargon ('frozen A/B/C mode', 'attribution', 'snapshots') add length without clarity, so not every sentence earns its place for a reader lacking internal context.

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, no parameter descriptions, and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to compensate for the bare schema. It conveys behavioral constraints but leaves the three required parameters and the return behavior unexplained, which is inadequate for a three-required-param mutation-style tool.

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 0% across three required parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It gestures at 'quote version' and 'price/terms hashes' (loosely mapping to quote_id) but never explains request_id, idempotency_key, or the required pattern-constrained formats. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence names a specific action (bind quote version + price/terms hashes to the verified caller for owner review), which is more than a tautology. However, opaque jargon like 'frozen A/B/C mode' and 'attribution' obscures what actually happens, and the description does not distinguish this from siblings such as evuun_prepare_service_inquiry or evuun_prepare_service_plan. An agent would struggle to route correctly among the prepare_* tools.

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?

'Attribution is not payment, booking or cancellation authority' and 'Changed or recalled authority cannot be reused' give implicit when-not conditions and a precondition (valid, unrecalled authority). But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this vs evuun_prepare_service_inquiry / evuun_prepare_service_plan, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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