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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call 'Sends nothing' and produces a confirmation_token that gates the real submission — an important non-obvious two-phase contract. It does not cover what the summary contains in detail or what happens if validation fails, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload (sequencing, side-effect status, next step, input policy). The most decision-relevant fact, 'Step 1 of 2' and 'Sends nothing', is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description correctly names the return values (summary and confirmation_token) and explains how to use them. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call 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 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters and the baseline is 3. The description still adds decision-level meaning by tying the four required fields to an 'ask, don't guess' policy and by reinforcing the message parameter's anti-fabrication intent.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Checks a quote request'), states the domain (HLN Apparel) and the outputs (summary plus confirmation_token). 'Step 1 of 2' plus the named sibling submit_inquiry makes the division of labor unambiguous to an agent comparing the two.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: show the summary to the buyer, get confirmation, then call submit_inquiry. It also gives a fallback rule for missing data ('ask for missing name, email, quantity or requirements instead of guessing'), covering both the sequencing and the input-gathering decision.

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