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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output mirrors what the site's quote assistant asks and splits the five questions into pricing vs scheduling roles, which is useful context, but says nothing about caching, rate limits, or freshness of the question set.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core return content (five questions with option ids) is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly cryptic in phrasing but earns its place by explaining the question semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description does convey the shape of the result. However, for a tool that is clearly a step in a quote workflow, it omits how the returned option ids should be consumed downstream, leaving a gap an agent must bridge.

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%: both 'service' (id from list_services) and 'language' (default en) are documented in the schema with enums. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: retrieves the five quote questions for a service, including their option ids. It is distinguishable from siblings like estimate_price or confirm_quote by the word 'questions', but it never names an alternative tool explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explains what the questions mean ('q1–q3 set the price; when and budget set the start and the follow-up') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against request_quote, confirm_quote, or estimate_price. The agent must infer the workflow step on its own.

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