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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: quote.maxCharge is the maximum run cost, quote.needsConfirmation triggers above $0.10, and the tool is free.

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 front-loaded with the core return values and then explains the quote fields and threshold behavior in compact sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or 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?

With rich annotations, full schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. The main missing element is explicit routing guidance versus procli_run, but otherwise the cost and quote behavior is well covered.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the planned input and maxItems determine whether the quote matches exactly the intended run.

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 that this tool returns input fields, price, and a quote for one data source, which is a specific verb-and-resource purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling procli_run, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 quote and needsConfirmation details imply this is a pre-run cost check, but the description never states when to use procli_inspect instead of procli_run or other siblings. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

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