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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does well by naming three concrete outputs and the success-only pricing behavior. It doesn't mention side effects or auth requirements, but the word 'quote' and the focus on returned data make the non-executing nature reasonably clear.

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 no filler; the first states purpose and the second gives invocation pattern and return contents. Easy to parse and front-loaded.

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?

The essential purpose and return values are documented, but with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent would still guess how input, options, and criteria combine or what to do with the quote token. Good enough for a first call, not fully complete.

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?

It adds useful meaning for objective and outcome_type (natural-language description vs prior quote result), but the required input parameter is left ambiguous. Schema coverage is complete, so this is a minor but real gap.

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 clearly identifies the action (produce a free quote for a HumanMirror Outcome contract) and lists what the quote contains: deterministic verifier, selected internal tool, and success-only credit cost. This makes it distinct from outcome_run and outcome_verify without needing to name them.

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?

It implies this is the preliminary step before running or verifying an outcome by instructing users to describe the objective or pass a prior outcome_type. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer outcome_quote over outcome_run/outcome_verify or states any exclusions.

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