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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial value beyond them: it does not execute, create a job, or charge the wallet, requires a bearer API key, and lists specific error codes including FundingRequired.

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-loads the key non-execution guarantee before routing instructions, and each subsequent clause adds distinct value (auth, cost, return, errors). It is dense and slightly packed with parentheticals, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description summarizes the return envelope (customerTotal, currency) and enumerates failure modes, covering everything an agent needs to call this 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 100%, so body, input, and capability_key are already documented in the schema (including the body/input alias caveat and the required-key note). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: previewing the cost of a capability run. It explicitly disambiguates from execution siblings (hydracept_run, hydracept_submit_job) and from request_capability_quote on the full profile.

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 explicit when-to-use (before spending, user asks about price) and when-not-to-use (run/submit_job are for execution), plus names a near-miss alternative (request_capability_quote) with the condition that distinguishes it.

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