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

Annotations are unhelpful (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It adds valuable context: 'No payment is made' clarifying that this is a non-monetary action, and 'Quote claim token is sensitive' warning about the output's contents. However, it does not specify whether any persistent state changes occur (e.g., saving a quote) or how the token should be handled beyond sensitivity, leaving some side effects untransparent.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. The primary action is front-loaded ('Get an estimated cheaper purchase plan'), followed by the key guarantee ('No payment is made') and a critical security note ('Quote claim token is sensitive'). No padding or redundant phrasing.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship between input parameters, what the returned quote plan looks like, how the sensitive token should be handled, or any prerequisite beyond a verified contract. The absence of an output schema places more burden on the description, and this description does not fill that void. An agent would struggle to know what the tool returns and how the parameters mutually constrain each other.

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% and no parameter details are provided in the description. The description only references 'contract' indirectly through 'verified contract', but does not clarify the purpose of the 7 parameters (capability, max_total_micro, baseline_provider, etc.). The agent gets no beyond-schema meaning and cannot determine what values to fill or what effect each parameter has.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('estimated cheaper purchase plan') with a clear qualifier ('for a verified contract') and an explicit behavioral note ('No payment is made'). The phrase 'purchase plan' distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'acqpath_rights_quote' (which implies a rights-related quote) and 'acqpath_capabilities' (which clearly lists capabilities).

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 implies the tool is used when the user has a verified contract and wants a cheaper quote ('for a verified contract', 'estimated cheaper purchase plan'), but it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mentions of alternatives such as acqpath_rights_quote or acqpath_capabilities. There is no direct comparison between this tool and its siblings, so the agent must infer application from the resource type.

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