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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description goes further and usefully discloses that this creates no charge, reservation, guaranteed availability, or binding quote — exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before presenting the number to a user.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose plus the strongest caveat lead. The disclaimer and the incentive-omission rule each earn their place and are placed after the purpose rather than burying it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The non-binding framing plus incentive semantics make this nearly complete; only session_count's role is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only covers one of two: it explains that incentive_per_person_usd is a caller-specified budget and that omitting it yields an unknown total. session_count is never mentioned, though the schema's min/max/default of 3 constrains it adequately on its own.

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 and resource — estimating a recruiting fee plus an incentive budget — which is a concrete, non-tautological purpose. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the siblings get_service_offer or submit_research_brief, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read 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?

"Omit incentives to show that the total is unknown" gives real guidance for one input, but there is no statement of when to call this tool versus get_service_offer or submit_research_brief. Usage is implied by the non-binding framing rather than spelled out.

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