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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact return payload (per-set and total USD with setup included, plus an orderUrl that opens Tabzoola's configurator with the build pre-selected for a human), notes pricing parity with the website, and restates the read-only nature in the context of charging.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition and then layers returns, limits and exclusions with no filler sentences. The opening clause is long and clause-heavy, but every element earns its place and nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully (per-set price, total, setup included, orderUrl behavior), plus the hard limits (min 25 sets, 1-150 tabs) and the human-completion handoff. An agent needs nothing else to call this correctly.

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 the schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces product (paper or poly), tabs-per-set, sets and the 25-set minimum, but adds nothing about the 'options' map or 'colorChanges', so it does not exceed the schema's own detail.

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+resource ('quote a price for custom-printed tab dividers') and pins the exact inputs required (product, tabs per set, number of sets). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings draft_order (which would transact) and get_pricing_capabilities (which enumerates options).

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 when-to-use condition ('when the user wants a price ... and knows the product, tabs per set and number of sets'), explicit exclusions ('Do not use for reverse-printed tabs, PMS ink or custom sheet sizes'), and an explicit never ('never to charge anyone'). This is close to the when/when-not/alternative bar.

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