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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly discloses side effects: it creates an order record, sends mail, and is not idempotent ('calling it twice issues two quotes to the same person'). It also reveals that the price is recomputed live and may differ from quote_price, and that shipping/tax are excluded until a delivery address is added. This adds real behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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 dense but every sentence carries information: purpose, return values, prerequisites, side effects, price behavior, and shipping/tax caveat. The critical purpose and outputs are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to skim the essentials.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return values. It also covers the essential call context: required buyer details, confirmation step, non-idempotence, live pricing divergence, and the shipping/tax limitation. For a 12-parameter mutating tool, this is a well-rounded and complete description.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that full_name, email, and phone are required buyer details and that configuration/quantity should be confirmed, but it does not add much new meaning about individual parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: it issues a real, numbered Promotion Pros quote and emails it to the buyer. It also names the return artifacts (quote number, price breakdown, PDF, quote page link, payment link), which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from price-estimation siblings like quote_price.

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 gives clear before-call requirements: ask for the buyer's full name, work email, and phone, and confirm the configuration and quantity. It also distinguishes this from quote_price by warning that the live price can differ from the snapshot. However, it does not explicitly say 'use quote_price if you only need a preliminary estimate' or name other sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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