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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read operation. The description builds on this by explaining the tool validates details, prices the order, and returns a confirmation summary, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only preview tool, the added behavioral context is valuable and consistent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately noting no submission, and ending with a clear mandatory usage directive. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, the schema is thorough, and the description explains the return (a confirmation summary) and the required usage pattern. While no output schema exists, the description provides enough context for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect, though the exact structure of the summary is unspecified.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with detailed descriptions, including accepted formats (e.g., state as 'WY' or 'Wyoming') and nuances (e.g., entityType includes 'Not sure'). The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool builds an exact order summary without submitting, using specific verbs like 'validates', 'prices', and 'returns'. It explicitly contrasts with submit_order by saying 'WITHOUT submitting anything', making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from its primary sibling.

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 an explicit directive: 'ALWAYS call this and show the user the returned summary before calling submit_order'. This offers precise when-to-use guidance relative to the main alternative, and the 'No side effects' statement reinforces safe use cases.

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