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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond that: nothing is ordered, nothing is saved or sent to the client, and the return is the full HTML quote in the response rather than a file, URL, or PDF.

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 compact and front-loaded with the usage condition, then moves through identity, output behavior, required line structure, and the follow-up invoicing tool. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the output format, clarifies that nothing is persisted or sent, identifies the scenario, and points to the accepted-quote follow-up tool. No critical invocation detail is missing.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description still adds meaning for the required 'lignes' array by listing item fields such as libelle, quantite, prix_unitaire, and tva, though it does not elaborate on the remaining parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 action in a specific context: an artisan quotes works before client approval. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from bon_intervention (nothing is ordered yet) and facture_facturx (used after the quote is accepted), so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'QUAND un artisan chiffre des travaux AVANT accord du client'. It also names the contrasting sibling bon_intervention and the downstream sibling facture_facturx, making the boundary between drafting, ordering, and invoicing clear.

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