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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is free, it returns alternatives and a paid execution URL, and it does not perform payment. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the tool's role in a multi-step commercial flow.

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 zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and outputs; the second sentence clarifies a critical boundary (no payment). Every word earns its place.

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 quote tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, outputs, and the key boundary (no payment). It lacks parameter-level detail for three optional parameters, but those are optional and the core behavior is well-specified. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by listing the return contents (value contract, price, alternatives, URL).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the core parameter 'task' implicitly ('Describe the commercial task'), but does not explain journeyId, desiredResults, or maxBudgetMicros. The description adds some meaning for the main parameter but leaves the other three parameters' semantics entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('resolver'), the resource ('task-to-price'), and the exact outputs (value contract, price, alternatives, paid execution URL). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from payment tools by stating 'No payment is performed by this tool.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like request_quote and mars_commerce_recover.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use it: when you have a commercial task and need a price quote. It also explicitly states what it does NOT do ('No payment is performed'), which helps an agent avoid using it for payment execution. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, though the sibling list provides context.

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