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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: one call handles multiple tiers, and an out-of-range tier produces a localized error without invalidating the other tiers. This is valuable runtime context that the annotations do not provide.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the core capability and the second adds a key behavioral detail. No filler, no redundancy, every sentence earns its place.

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 a tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable picture of the return concept ('Grille de devis') and a key edge-case behavior. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape or how it compares to quote_product, but it is sufficiently complete for tool selection and basic invocation.

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 67%, with quantities and selection already well described. The description reinforces the quantity-tier concept and error behavior, but it does not add much meaning beyond the schema for productId or the selection object. Moderate added value.

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 purpose: produce a quote grid for multiple quantity tiers in a single call. It clearly differentiates from sibling quote_product by emphasizing 'plusieurs paliers de quantité' and 'en UN appel', so an agent can tell when this tool is intended.

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?

It gives explicit context: this is 'la bonne façon' to answer quantity-tier questions like 'combien pour 100, 250, 500 ?'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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