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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it is a dry-run query that returns pricing and authority constraints and explicitly does not create an intent, which tells the agent this is a non-mutating inspection step. Missing only things like error or staleness behavior.

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 tight sentences: the first gives the usage trigger, the second front-loads the enumerated return payload. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

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 compensates by listing the return contents in detail, which is exactly what an agent needs before calling. Minor residual gap: no mention of failure modes or how the returned 'funding rule' and authority requirements must be honored downstream.

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% and the single offer_id parameter is an enum with a clear schema description pointing back to list_offers/qualify_task. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get purchase requirements) and enumerates precisely what is returned: exact price, buy_service contract, delegated-authority requirements, payment route, capacity limits, and funding rule. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from create_purchase_intent via 'without creating an intent', so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

'Use after selecting an offer' gives a clear sequencing trigger and the closing phrase 'without creating an intent' signals the boundary against create_purchase_intent. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative tools (create_purchase_intent, prepare_purchase_route) or state when this should be skipped.

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