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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the authentication requirement (Happy Hamper login) and describes what information is returned (cost, availability, return date).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by the single prerequisite. No filler; every clause carries 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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the call returns and the auth prerequisite, which is close to sufficient. The one gap is the origin/format of addressId, which an agent needs to supply 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 coverage is 50%: 'date' is documented as YYYY-MM-DD but 'addressId' has no schema description. The description loosely maps 'at one of their addresses' to addressId and 'on a date' to date, but does not clarify where addressId comes from or its format, so it only partially compensates.

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?

The description states a specific verb (quote/price) and resource (one-time pickup), and enumerates the three outputs: cost, bookability, and return date. This clearly separates it in spirit from book_one_time_pickup, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the quote-vs-book framing and the prerequisite 'Needs the customer's Happy Hamper login,' which is useful context. However, it never explicitly says to call this before book_one_time_pickup or contrasts with get_pickup_options, leaving the routing to inference.

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