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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the genuinely new fact that the quote_id expires in 24 hours and that the total includes delivery. It also imposes a human-in-the-loop obligation before ordering, which is behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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 as purpose, return values, then the required follow-up action. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 steps in properly by naming the returned fields (quote_id, naira total including delivery, arrival day) and the validity window. What is missing is error behavior for mis-specified options and any note on whether delivery cost varies by quantity above one.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents size, colour, quantity, makeable_id, and personalisation, and the delivery_state enum is self-explanatory. The description adds only the framing that options are "chosen" and the destination is a Nigerian state; it does not clarify what happens for invalid size/colour values or the quantity ceiling of 50.

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?

"Price one item with chosen options, delivered to a Nigerian state" gives a specific verb (price) and resource (item + destination), and the return clause names the three values produced. This is clearly distinguishable from ordering siblings such as place_order or confirm_order, and from find_makeables which supplies the id.

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?

"Show this to the person before ordering" establishes this as the pre-purchase step in the flow, which implies the ordering tool is the alternative. It does not explicitly name place_order or state when re-quoting is needed (e.g., after the 24-hour window lapses), so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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