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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description must carry the rest — and it does, disclosing the exact return shape: ex-VAT lines, VAT, total, every certification the pair offers with its total, a delivery estimate, and an order_url. That is real value beyond the annotation. It stops short of auth requirements or any note about pricing staleness.

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?

It is a single ~60-word sentence stitched together with colons and commas, packing the purpose and the full return-value inventory into one run-on clause. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the trailing list of outputs is dense and hard to scan; splitting it into two or three sentences would cost nothing.

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 is the only source of return-value information, and it covers that well (line items, VAT, total, all certification totals, delivery estimate, order_url). Nine parameters are fully documented in the schema and the read-only nature is covered by the annotation, so what remains missing is only minor: no indication of required permissions or when a quote might be unavailable.

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 100% and the parameter descriptions are already rich (speed surcharges, per-currency price sheets, quantity-vs-file_tokens measuring rule, omitting certification to list all options). The description only restates those axes in prose and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely — a price quote for a certified translation — and enumerates the dimensions that drive the price (language pair, page count or sent documents, speed, certification, currency). It implicitly separates itself from create_order by pointing at 'the order_url for the website checkout' rather than claiming to place an order, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 rather than stated: 'the same calculator as checkout' suggests you call this to price something before ordering, and the mention of 'the documents sent with send_document' hints at the file-token workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no statement that this does not create an order, and no routing to create_order or list_languages.

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