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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description reveals important behavior: the price is computed by the pricing engine rather than read from stored SKU data, it is the only firm price, and when `requiresReview` is true the quotation applies to `resolvedSelection` rather than the original request. This is valuable, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. The conditional warning is placed at the end without cluttering the main message.

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 nested input objects and no output schema, the description covers the most critical conceptual output fields and the `requiresReview` caveat. It could be more complete by explaining how to obtain or construct `productId`, but the essential pricing behavior and review semantics are present.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented `productId` parameter. It mentions 'selection' in general terms but adds little meaning beyond the input schema, and the `requiresReview` remark refers to output behavior rather than input parameters.

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 is explicit: it produces a real quote for a selected product configuration, with HT price computed by the pricing engine, currency, lead time, and promotion. It also distinguishes itself from alternatives by emphasizing that this is the only firm price and that it is never read from a SKU table.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when a firm, real price for a selection is needed, and it warns about the `requiresReview` case. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like `quote_by_quantity` or state when not to use them, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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