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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive call. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it consumes a bounded credit reservation (a cost side effect), requires explicit user authorization, and will not auto-publish comments. It could still say what artifacts the run creates, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the authorization prerequisite immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 annotations covering safety/idempotency, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description only needs to cover prerequisites and side-effect boundaries, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, and each parameter is documented in the schema itself (quote_id, project_id default behavior, idempotency_key retry semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: it starts a hosted assessment from a current quote. The dependency on a prior quote tool (quote_review_page) is implied, giving partial sibling differentiation, but it never names the alternatives such as get_page_review or submit_page_review directly.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Call only after the user authorizes the quoted spend.' That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or which sibling to pick if no quote exists yet.

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