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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no authentication required, the result is non-binding, and validation happens against the live catalog. It does not cover failure modes or what 'bounded' means in practice.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and packs scope, semantics (non-binding), and the auth constraint without filler.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% schema coverage the description should do more to explain the required free-form 'request' object and the meaning of max_total_price, so the picture is only partially complete.

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 0% across 3 parameters, including an opaque free-form 'request' object. The description only obliquely gestures at parameters ('bounded request' hints at max_total_price, 'live catalog' hints at capability_id) and never explains the request payload shape.

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?

Gives a specific verb+resource: validate a request against the catalog and return a price/duration estimate. The word 'estimate' clearly separates it from run_wave_job and run_buyer_job, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'non-binding price and duration estimate without authentication' implies this is a pre-flight check before committing to run_wave_job, but the description never states when to use it versus actually running the job. Usage is left to inference.

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