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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the concrete consequences: the quote becomes 'expired', checkout links and USDC payment requests stop working, it can't be paid, and it can't be discarded once ordered or paid. This confirms and enriches the idempotentHint (repeat discard is harmless) and clarifies the destructiveHint=false nuance.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and effect, followed by idempotency and preconditions. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct fact an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers effect, irreversibility characteristics, and failure preconditions. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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%; the single quote_id parameter is already documented as 'qt_... returned by create_quote'. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('close a quote') and immediately gives the business reason ('stops counting toward the open-quote limit'). The described state transition to 'expired' clearly separates it from siblings like update_quote and get_quote.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('a quote you no longer need') and explicit preconditions for failure ('an ordered quote, or one with a USDC payment received, can't be discarded'). It does not name a sibling alternative or direct the agent to update_quote for milder edits, so it falls short of a 5.

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