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

With readOnlyHint=false, the annotations only signal that this is not a read-only operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it discloses billing per activation, quoted price, quoted period, hourly review checks, priority screening, human confirmation, and an expiration constraint, though it does not cover failure handling or permission details beyond the capability note.

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 quote purpose and then flows into confirmation and expiration details. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but most of the information is relevant to pricing, activation, and the quote workflow.

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 a quote-generation flow without an output schema, the description covers the key points an agent needs: what is being quoted, billing basis, confirmation requirement, quote_id dependency, and expiry. It could be more complete by clarifying what the tool returns or how it relates directly to set_attack_mode.

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?

There is only one input parameter, company, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond saying 'for your company' and noting the settings capability, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics.

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 a specific action and resource: producing a quote for Attack Mode for the company. It explains the product terms (hourly checks, priority screening, quoted price, billed per activation), which makes the purpose concrete, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling set_attack_mode.

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 a clear usage flow: show the confirmation, wait for the person's yes, and use the quote_id before expires_at when entering. It does not explicitly name set_attack_mode as the alternative or state when quoting should be skipped, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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