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

The annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it opens a page rather than returning approval objects, it creates no approval or hold, and consent is recovered automatically after confirmation. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a critical clarification and the next-step instruction. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has four parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, making it moderately complex. The description covers the core purpose, read-only nature, and the submission flow, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not address the optional approval_receipt parameter or explain the 'maximum price' reference, which could cause minor confusion.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references three of the four parameters (quote_id, request, idempotency_key) and implies they must match a prior quote, adding semantic guidance. It does not mention the optional approval_receipt parameter or explain the nested request structure, leaving gaps.

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 action (open a verified RQM account page) for a specific purpose (human review of the motion request and max price). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from submission by saying to submit afterward using the same quote, request, and key, and clarifies that this read creates no approval or hold.

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 clear guidance on when to use: before human confirmation, to open the review page. It also names the next step (submit with the same identifiers). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention other relevant sibling tools like quote_cloud_motion.

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