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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing side effects: Rafał receives the request and the client gets a draft offer by e-mail. It also states the one-request-per-address-per-day limit, which is important for a non-idempotent mutation; remaining error/permission details are left to annotations/schema.

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 written sentences: confirmation action, side effects, and daily rate limit. Each sentence adds useful information and the action is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with nested answers, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral context (side effects and rate limit). Together with the title and token description, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 eight parameters are documented in the schema. The description only highlights the 6-digit code and does not add format or constraint details beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Confirms') and resource ('quote request') with the 6-digit code, and the title/description mark it as step 2. This distinguishes it from request_quote, which initiates the flow.

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?

Gives clear context: it is used once the client has received the 6-digit code. It does not explicitly name request_quote as the prerequisite or state when not to use it, so routing relies partly on the title and token parameter description.

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