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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond that — that the quote field is conditional ('if sent') — and implies credential-based access via the private key, but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid reference or key.

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 sentence with no filler, and the conditional nature of the quote is signalled inline in parentheses. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the expected return fields, effectively substituting for missing output documentation. The gaps are the credential requirement and failure modes, but neither is essential to calling it correctly.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It does assign roles — 'reference' identifies the request and 'private_key' authorizes access — which is more than the bare schema conveys, but it never explains the required reference format (^GB-[0-9A-F]{6}$) or where the private key comes from.

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 names the specific resource (a request) and enumerates what the caller gets back (status, next step, quote, amount due, shipment steps), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like create_payment_link or submit_sourcing_request. It describes the payload rather than leading with a verb, so the action ('retrieve') is implicit, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no statement of preconditions such as the caller having previously submitted the request or having been issued the private key. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the mention of a reference and private key.

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