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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the quote is free and returns verifier/tool/cost information, suggesting a non-mutating estimation flow. However, it does not explicitly say no execution occurs, explain 'success-only credit cost' semantics, or address auth or side effects.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause carries relevant information. It is slightly dense and jargon-heavy, but appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description would need to explain the quote response structure and invocation alternatives more precisely. It provides a good high-level summary of what the quote returns and how to specify the objective, but leaves the required input/objective interaction and exact return format under-specified.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful relationship by saying 'describe the objective or provide an outcome_type,' but it does not clarify how the required 'input' relates to those optional fields, and it does not mention options or criteria.

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 a quoting action for a HumanMirror Outcome contract and lists its three key outputs: deterministic verifier, selected internal tool, and success-only credit cost. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'quote' framing and cost output separate it from outcome_run and outcome_verify.

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 a free, pre-execution step for getting a quote before running an outcome, but it never explicitly says when to choose outcome_quote over outcome_run or outcome_verify. The routing is inferable from sibling names and the mention of cost, but the description leaves it implicit.

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