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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: the result is in EUR cents, pricing follows Medusa, missing configuration fields mean the configuration is not ready, and delivery/final total are deferred to checkout. This does not contradict the annotations.

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 three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded firstharexpected. The second sentence gives usage constraints and the third clarifies final pricing scope. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The core behavior, pricing unit, and checkout caveat are present, which is helpful. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the response shape or fully cover the large parameter surface, so an agent may still be unsure what to expect or how to handle the many optional/conditional inputs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for explaining parameters, but it only mentions 'dimensions and material' at a high level. It leaves the many other parameters (crop, colorwayId, designType, repeatScale, catalogRevision, pricingRevision, quantity) unexplained and does not help the agent understand how to supply them correctly.

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 clearly states the tool computes a product quote in EUR cents using Medusa pricing rules, giving a specific verb, resource, and unit. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling validate_configuration, but the calculate-versus-validate and quote-versus-handoff functions are implicit in the wording.

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 should be called when dimensions and material are availableading and that a missing field makes the configuration unfinished)Skip. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer validate_configuration or create_configuration_handoff, leaving sibling selection mostly to the agent's inference.

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