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

Annotation already indicates non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds value by stating 'No payment is collected and no instant price is returned' and 'Requires explicit confirmations and a stable submissionId for retries', clarifying behavioral traits like manual review and retry semantics. No contradictions 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?

Description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with core purpose, followed by aliases and key behavioral notes. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 (16 required parameters, manual review process), the description covers purpose and high-level behavior but lacks details on parameter usage and post-submission flow. Output schema exists but is not referenced; description could better guide the agent on what to expect after submission.

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?

With 16 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description lacks detailed parameter explanations. It groups parameters as 'customer contact details' and 'file metadata' and hints at submissionId and confirmations, but fails to clarify most parameters like materialPreference, quantity, requestType, etc., leaving significant ambiguity.

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 'Submit customer contact details and private uploaded file metadata for manual PrintYourDuck quote review' with a specific verb and resource. Alias intents further disambiguate from siblings which are about getting requirements and status.

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?

Provides alias intents to map user requests to this tool, and mentions prerequisites (explicit confirmations, stable submissionId for retries). Does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the sibling tool names and description context imply appropriate usage.

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