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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the two facts an agent most needs: the quote is valid for ten minutes, and calling it starts nothing and reserves nothing. That reconciles the readOnlyHint=false annotation (a quote record is presumably materialized) rather than contradicting it. It doesn't say what happens if the quote expires before 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?

Two tight sentences with the pricing guarantee first and the consent requirement last; no filler. The compressed jargon ('held band task') sacrifices a little clarity for brevity but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back (a quote handle, an expiry, the itemized credit breakdown), and it doesn't. For a non-read-only two-parameter pricing tool in a quote/confirm/cancel flow, it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return value and the job_id source.

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 50%: 'seconds' is documented in the schema and the description reinforces it ('for its length and choices'), but job_id is undocumented in both places, so the agent must guess that it refers to a previously held task. The description adds modest meaning over the schema without closing the gap.

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 verb+resource are concrete: it prices a transcription job in credits for a given length and options, with a ten-minute validity window. The phrase 'held band task' is internal jargon that isn't explained, and it never names the quote-confirmation sibling, but an agent can still tell this is the pricing step rather than the execution step.

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 one workflow rule ('start only after their explicit consent') which implies the handoff to confirm_transcription_quote, but it never states when to call this versus confirm_transcription_quote, cancel_transcription_quote, or choose_engine. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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