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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating the tool performs no action and the customer sends the request themselves, which is a meaningful behavioral claim beyond the annotations for a tool whose name suggests submission.

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?

Two compact sentences that lead with what is returned and end with the crucial non-action clarification. Only the "round of questions" clause is mildly decorative, but it earns its place by motivating the parameters.

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?

For a simple, no-parameter-required informational tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this covers what an agent needs: what it returns and that it has no side effects. Only the lack of sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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% and both parameters are optional with their own descriptions, so the schema carries the detail. The description's phrase "what to include so the engineers can answer without a round of questions" hints at why series and application matter but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema.

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 states what the tool actually returns: the address to write to and the information to include when requesting a quote from Oxbox Energy. It usefully corrects the misleading name by clarifying that no request is sent, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as sizing_tool or get_documents.

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?

"It sends nothing; the customer sends the request themselves" implicitly rules out expecting a submitted quote, which is useful negative guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when an agent should prefer sizing_tool or find_series first.

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