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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: zero cost, a ~10 minute quote lifetime, and invalidation when any field changes. It stops short of noting rate limits or whether warnings are advisory vs. blocking, so it is not a full 5.

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?

A single front-loaded passage that leads with the definition and cost, then the quote mechanics. Mostly dense, though the mid-sentence list of return values is slightly crowded and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (max credits, dollar figures, warnings, expiring quote). It also explains how the nested 'body' object relates to the make tools, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents both 'kind' (enum) and 'body' (fields of the make tool for this kind, without quote). The description largely restates that mapping rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('prices a request without making it') and immediately enumerates what the price consists of (credit cost, dollar figures, warnings, quote). It explicitly differentiates itself from the make siblings by name, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this before making, it is free, the quote lasts ~10 minutes, and the corresponding make tool accepts the quote back and rejects it if a field changed. It names the three alternative tools by name and describes the round-trip workflow between estimate and make.

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