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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description adds useful context beyond that: the output is a tax-inclusive price range and a returned page through which the user can later obtain real quotes. Given there is no output schema, this return-oriented context is valuable, though it stops short of format/pagination detail.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and the follow-up detail about real quotes second. No wasted clauses, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 read-only estimator with a nested values object and no output schema, the description covers what it produces (a price range) and what the return enables (real quotes via the returned page). Safety is covered by annotations. It is largely complete, missing only minor return-format specifics.

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 both the slug enum and the values object are already documented. The description only adds that fields follow get_quote, which is a mild pointer rather than new syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: it returns a price range (fourchette de prix TTC) for named service categories. It also distinguishes the estimate from real quotes ('la personne peut ensuite recevoir de vrais devis'), but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_quote or compute_calculator, only noting the fields follow get_quote.

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: this is a pre-quote estimate step and the fields come from get_quote. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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