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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context: no chat card is posted, the `do` card self-updates, nothing is paid at quote time, and success is proven by a signedReceipt with keys at receiptKeysUrl. It omits the meaning of the optional `since`/`waitSeconds` waiting behavior, which directly affects how a call behaves.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read semantics and statuses, then constraints, then receipt info — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and telegraphic in places ("keys at receiptKeysUrl"), leaning on the reader to infer the receipt-verification flow.

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, the description does the right thing by enumerating possible statuses and quote fields, so return values are adequately covered. But it never explains the two optional waiting parameters, leaving a real gap in a three-parameter tool that supports polling.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — it covers `requestId` but says nothing about `since` or `waitSeconds`. The instruction "only once" even leaves ambiguous whether long-polling via waitSeconds is intended.

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 (read one request by requestId) and enumerates the exact status values it can return, including the sub-fields of a quote. It also distinguishes itself from `do` by contrast ("No chat card: the card from do updates itself"), so an agent can route correctly without opening siblings.

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?

Explicitly constrains invocation ("Call this only when the user asks, and only once"), tells the agent what to do on a pending result ("say so and stop"), and names the alternative path for accepting a quote (`respond_to_quote` or the card). When-to-use, when-not, and alternative are all stated.

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