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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, read-only profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: no persistence or sending, no PDF rendering, currency treated as a label with no FX conversion, no auth, and a rate limit. It stops short of quantifying the rate limit or describing edge-case behavior.

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 action, then a sequence of short declarative clauses that each deliver a distinct fact (output formats, non-persistence, currency handling, auth, rate limit). Every sentence earns its place; only the slightly clipped fragment style costs a point.

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 an output schema present, return structure needn't be explained. For a stateless read-only generator the description covers what it produces, what it deliberately does not do, currency semantics, and access constraints, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that discounts are percentages applied per item and tax is computed on discounted amounts, and that currency is a non-converting label, which clarifies three of the five fields. quotationNumber, sender, and client receive no interpretation at all, leaving part of the gap unfilled.

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 (Generate) and resource (quotation JSON and plain-text draft) with concrete output formats. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling (sow_generate or the other *_generate document tools), so an agent must infer the quotation-vs-SOW distinction from the name alone.

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?

Gives negative guidance ('Does not save, send, or render PDF; website provides visual export') and operational gating ('Free, no authentication required. Rate limited'), which implies when the tool is usable. However it never names an alternative tool or an explicit condition for choosing this over a sibling generator.

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