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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that a quote is not a hold, nothing is reserved, no price is locked, and commit_order re-prices from the card, with the agent told if the merchant changed a figure. It details all return fields and the meaning of each failure reason, plus escalation refs and authentication state. This is exceptionally transparent.

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?

Although dense, every sentence earns its place. It starts with the core action, then prerequisites, return values, caveats, error handling, escalation path, and authentication. The structure is logical and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers how to invoke, what to expect, all failure modes with actionable outcomes, escalation polling, and security context. There are no significant gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: items must use codes from get_rate_card, up to 100 lines, note is never parsed and never changes the figure, and language is recorded. These extra notes enrich parameter understanding without repeating schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Price a specific set of line items against a business's rate card.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming get_rate_card as a prerequisite and commit_order as the later binding step, so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call get_rate_card first and use its code values. Also clarifies when to use alternatives: commit_order re-prices at bind time, and escalations are polled with check_escalation. It even tells the agent to change quantity and call again for 'quantity-out-of-range'. This is thorough usage guidance with exclusions and alternatives.

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