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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the tool is expected to create something without destruction. The description adds that it returns a reference, replies within one day, and emails nothing to the requester. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as asynchronous response and no email confirmation.

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 compact and front-loads the primary purpose and outcome. Two sentences with no fluff, and each part adds value: purpose, formal nature, output reference, response time, and a note about email behavior.

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 description covers the request procedure, response timing, and what is not emailed. Given the output schema exists (likely defines the reference), and the schema has adequate parameter details, the description is complete for the agent to use. It could be more complete with explicit mention that no immediate quote is returned, but the 'replies within one day' implies that.

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?

The schema already covers items and contact in detail (67% coverage). The description does not repeat parameter details but clarifies the quote process and that items must be live catalog parts (though that is also in schema). It adds no new parameter semantics but the schema already handles it. Coverage is high so baseline is 3, and the description's slight clarification justifies a 4.

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 that the tool requests a formal quotation for catalog parts and creates a quote request with a returned reference. It is specific to catalog quote creation, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_parts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with each sibling, so a slight deduction.

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 implies usage context (requesting formal quotes) but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings like check_compatibility or resolve_supersession. It provide no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. The context that it emails nothing is a minor guidance about what to expect.

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