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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this has no side effects, and "signed" adds the meaningful detail that the result is a verifiable artifact. However, it does not disclose whether the quote expires, whether it must be echoed back into a generation call, or what pricing it covers - gaps that matter for a quoting tool.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the core action and uses a colon to attach the parameter guidance without filler. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 never indicates what the quote returns (price, signature, id, validity window) or how it is consumed downstream. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the return-value gap leaves the definition only minimally complete for a quoting tool.

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 parameters are documented in the schema itself (including examples). The description still adds value by framing profile and stages as alternative input modes, a relationship the schema does not express, plus noting the budget cap is optional.

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 artifact ("get a signed price quote") plus the temporal scope ("before generating"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_reel and schedule_publish. An agent can identify this as the pre-flight cost-estimation step without opening 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?

"before generating" gives clear when-to-use context, and the two input modes (profile vs. stage mapping) imply different situations. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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