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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It successfully mentions that an API key is required ('KEYED tool') and that the process is asynchronous ('Sales follows up out-of-band'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., quote creation), error scenarios, or return format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding auth/async context in the second. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, auth requirements, and post-submission behavior. It could be improved by noting any response or confirmation, but overall provides a sufficient mental model for correct use.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, summarizing that the tool takes SKUs and contact info. The schema already has descriptions for items and notes (67% coverage), and the description does not elaborate on parameter constraints or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema 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 clearly states the action ('Submit a quote request'), the resource ('one or more SKUs'), and the required context ('buyer contact info'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_price_and_lead_time, get_product_details, search_products) by being a write/submission tool rather than a read/inquiry tool.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing to submit a quote request) and provides context about post-submission behavior ('Sales follows up out-of-band'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from siblings.

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