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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context on top: SKUs are validated against the catalogue, missing information comes back in the response, and consent is a hard gate with a stated rationale ('the agent calling this is not the buyer'). The one omission is duplicate behavior – annotations say idempotentHint=false but the description never warns that a repeated call creates a second enquiry.

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 negative scope ('nothing else: no price, no stock, no delivery date, no order') is front-loaded in the second sentence where it does the most work. Each sentence carries distinct information; the only slack is the slightly wordy closing clause about information being 'named back in the response'.

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?

For an 11-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world write with no output schema, the description covers enough: it sketches the return value ('a reference back') and the validation loop without needing a schema. What it lacks is any statement about duplicate submissions or what the reference looks like, which an agent retrying after a timeout would want.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a point above it by explaining *why* consent must be true rather than restating that it must be – a semantic the schema's own one-liner only partially conveys. It also gives meaning to the `lines` payload ('every part number is validated against the catalogue'), though the other nine parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a quotation request for one or more products') and immediately scopes what is produced ('get a reference back'). It also draws a hard boundary against pricing and ordering, which is what separates it from siblings like get_product_pricing and check_product_requirements in an agent's mind.

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 when-not is unusually explicit: 'accepts no price, confirms no stock, commits no delivery date and creates no order' tells the agent not to reach for this tool when it needs a price or availability. It stops short of naming the sibling tools to use instead for those needs, so the routing is implied 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.