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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations lack: the authorization role and plan tier required. It doesn't say what the receptionist actually does when quoting is off (refuse vs. deflect), which keeps it from 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the functional effect front-loaded and the access constraint following. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 simple two-parameter toggle with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient — action, scope, and prerequisites are all present. The only real gap is disambiguation from estimates_set_enabled, which matters given how many estimates_* siblings exist.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'allow or stop' phrasing merely mirrors the boolean 'enabled' semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate — no syntax or edge-case detail is added beyond the schema.

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 specific verb pair ('Allow or stop') and a concrete resource ('the receptionist saying estimate prices to callers on calls'), making the effect unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling estimates_set_enabled, leaving an agent to guess which switch governs what.

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?

Provides clear gating context ('Owner or team admin; PRO and above') that tells the agent who can successfully call it. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion — notably estimates_set_enabled — so the selection guidance is incomplete rather than absent.

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