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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds important behavioral details: questions are ranked by price_impact, and the agent should present them as user-choices rather than covert data collection. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: usage, return format, and rendering guidance. No redundancy, well front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no enums, no nested objects) and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and ethical use. No gaps identified.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It implies 'quote_id' via 'existing quote' but does not explicitly describe either parameter. 'max_questions' is not mentioned at all. The schema's limited meaning (quote_id as string) is not enriched.

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?

Clearly states verb 'get' and resource 'questions to tighten an existing quote'. Distinguishes from sibling tools that create proposals or refine quotes. The description is specific about the task and outcome.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('when you want to know what user-facing questions would most tighten an existing quote') and provides advice on rendering questions as user-choices. It does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios but gives clear usage context.

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