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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile, and it does: 'free,' 'read-only,' and no money reserved until acceptance. It also discloses a fallback behavior ('unknown task labels may be mapped to a compatible live-worker capability'). Auth requirements, rate limits, and return shape are not covered, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the defining property (free, read-only estimate) and then sequencing and edge-case behavior. No filler.

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 quote/estimate tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, routing to the execution sibling, cost/safety profile, and label-mapping fallback. It stops short of describing the quote payload, but that is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents task_type and the constraints object in detail. The description restates the same task-label categories (research, sourcing, verification) without adding syntax, format, or constraint-handling detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 — a 'free, read-only price estimate for delegated machine work' — and immediately scopes it as happening 'before any job is submitted or money is reserved.' This clearly separates it from the execution sibling submit_paid_machine_job and the retrieval sibling get_paid_machine_job.

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 names the alternative and the sequencing condition: 'after accepting the quote, use submit_paid_machine_job for execution.' It also enumerates qualifying work types (custom public-web research, sourcing, verification, commercial intelligence), leaving nothing to inference.

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