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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds beyond that by confirming the dry-run semantics ('Nothing is saved') and by disclosing role and plan gating (Owner or team admin; PRO and above). It does not cover edge behavior, e.g. what happens when no prices are configured for the account.

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 ordered action → safety → authorization, with zero filler. The terse 'Owner or team admin; PRO and above' fragment is compressed but still readable as a constraint.

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 two-parameter, fully described, annotation-covered read tool this is nearly sufficient: purpose, non-persistence, and authorization are all stated. The main gap is that with no output schema, the description could say what the returned estimate contains (e.g. price range or line items), which the agent currently cannot infer.

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 both parameters are documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the intent of 'text' by framing it as what a caller would say, but adds no syntax, length, or format guidance 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (show the estimate) and pins down the exact scenario: a simulated caller utterance priced against current prices. 'Nothing is saved' implicitly separates it from the persisted-estimate siblings (estimates_get), but no sibling is named, so differentiation is by implication rather than explicit routing.

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 clear invocation context and hard prerequisites ('Owner or team admin; PRO and above') that an agent must check before calling. It never states exclusions or points at alternatives such as estimates_get or estimates_update_prices, so the when-not-to-use case is left to inference.

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