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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the role/permission gate and plan tier required, plus the state effect of closing the assumption. It does not mention reversibility (e.g. estimates_undo) or what happens to the estimate afterwards, which keeps it short of a 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, zero filler: purpose first, alternative second, prerequisites last. Every clause carries actionable 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the alternative, and the permission/plan requirements. The only gap is what the agent should expect after confirmation — e.g. whether the accepted price becomes locked or can be undone.

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 the single parameter businessProfileId is documented in the schema with its 'omit for the default business' semantics. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Accept') on a specific resource ('the open assumption shown by estimates_get') and states the resulting state change ('so it is closed'). It also names the sibling that performs the contrasting action, so an agent can distinguish it from estimates_update_prices and estimates_get immediately.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use (there is an open assumption to accept) and names the alternative path with the exact parameter needed ('use estimates_update_prices with answersAssumption=true'). It also lists prerequisites: owner or team admin, PRO plan and above.

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