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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-openWorld, and the description adds value beyond them: it states 'Sends nothing', discloses the returned confirmation_token (the key artifact linking step 1 to step 2), and mandates a human confirmation gate. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 load-bearing: flow position, behavior, required user step, and data-fidelity constraint. The most important signal ('Step 1 of 2') 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return payload (summary + confirmation_token). Combined with the confirmation gate and the anti-hallucination rule for a 10-parameter tool, 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics by naming the four required inputs (name, email, quantity, requirements/message) and instructing the agent not to fabricate values. That is meaningful filling guidance beyond the per-field schema descriptions, though it stops short of field-level detail.

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 and resource ('Checks a quote request ... returns a summary plus a confirmation_token') and frames itself as 'Step 1 of 2', which cleanly separates it from submit_inquiry. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the flow without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing ('before calling submit_inquiry'), an explicit required user interaction ('Show the summary to the buyer and ask them to confirm'), and an explicit exclusion ('Only use details the buyer actually gave; ask for missing name, email, quantity or requirements instead of guessing'). Nothing is left to inference.

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