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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the calculation is deterministic (price list in code, matching the site assistant), the draft offer is conditional on all five answers, and MCP Apps hosts render an offer card.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the computation source, then the conditional offer behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is dense and slightly awkward ('what the price is made of').

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The description is complete enough for a 4-parameter tool with nested answers, the remaining gap being the absence of any explicit comparison to the quote-request siblings.

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 the schema already documents service, answers, language and description in detail. The description adds only a marginal nuance — that a complete five-answer set changes the output — without clarifying parameter formats or the link between answers and pricing tiers.

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 names the concrete outputs (net price range in PLN, monthly upkeep, duration, price breakdown) for a service plus its answers, which is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from get_quote_questions or request_quote. It is clear what the tool computes, though it never explicitly states the verb or names a sibling it is not.

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?

It gives context — the estimate comes from the same price list as the site's quote assistant, and a draft offer appears once all five answers are supplied — but it never states when to use this instead of request_quote or confirm_quote. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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