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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) by disclosing the exact pricing algorithm (Google driving round trip × $3/mile under 199 miles, $2/mile at 199+, capped at $1,450), the additional outputs when product+quantity are given (per-plant tier, subtotal, free-delivery qualification, total), and the limitation that it cannot see or book delivery schedules. This level of detail makes the tool's behavior fully transparent and consistent with the read-only annotation. No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single, well-organized block that leads with the core purpose, then explains the pricing formula, then lists optional outputs, then provides usage guidance and a limitation. Every sentence earns its place: no fluff, no repetition, and the most critical information (what it quotes and the calculator) is front-loaded. The structure is dense but easily parseable.

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 complexity (conditional logic, optional product+quantity, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs to know to call it correctly and interpret the result: it states the outputs (delivery cost, per-plant tier, subtotal, free-delivery flag, total), the fee-only limitation, and the pickup toggle. The lack of an output schema is compensated by explicitly enumerating the return values. No significant gaps remain.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying the conditional relationships: destination is required unless pickup=true, and product+quantity are only needed when the user wants additional product pricing. It also explains that setting pickup=true returns a pickup-only price. These insights go beyond the schema's individual property descriptions, improving the agent's ability to construct correct calls.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: quoting delivery costs to a California address and, when product+quantity are provided, also quoting per-plant tier, subtotal, free-delivery eligibility, and total. The verb 'quote' is specific, the resource is the nursery's pricing calculator, and it distinguishes itself from all sibling tools (which are informational getters like get_availability, get_inventory, etc.) by being the only one that computes pricing. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description explicitly directs the agent to use this tool instead of estimating prices or delivery costs itself, and it flags what it cannot do ('Fee-only: it cannot see or book delivery schedules'). It also provides a conditional instruction ('Set pickup=true for a pickup-only price'), clarifying when the pickup parameter should be used. While it doesn't name alternative tools, none of the siblings offer quote functionality, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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