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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by naming the returned figures (line amounts, subtotal, discount, tax, total, deposit, valid-until), which is the only disclosure of output shape since no output schema exists.

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?

A single tight sentence with the cost signal and output list front-loaded; every clause earns its place. Slightly dense enumeration but no filler.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description correctly supplies the return-field list and confirms this is a side-effect-free calculation. It leaves input semantics (currency code format, percent bases, item cost rules) unstated, which is the main remaining gap for a 6-parameter 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it names discount, tax, deposit, and valid-until, mapping loosely to four of the six inputs. It says nothing about units or formats, and currency and the items array (quantity/unit_price/description) go entirely unexplained.

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 the resource (totals for a quote/estimate) and enumerates the exact outputs computed, so the agent knows this is a calculation tool rather than a data-fetch tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like pricing or late_fee, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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 says nothing about when to use this versus pricing, quote_pack, or late_fee, and gives no prerequisites or input expectations. 'Free' hints at a cost-tier distinction but is not framed as selection guidance.

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