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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses that no key is needed, that the 10% WELCOME10 discount is conditional with a 7-day renewing window, that free shipping appears as its own line, that no tax line is returned (tax is invoiced), and that sub-100 quantities are refused by the tool itself. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 content is front-loaded with the output shape, then constraints, then routing, and nearly every clause carries information. The single long run-on sentence packs multiple distinct facts together, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes little.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return structure — tier, list totals, discount line, add-ons, shipping, grand total, and the deliberate absence of tax. Combined with auth and sequencing notes, nothing needed to call this tool correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so quantity (min 100, max 7000) and antiMetalCount are already fully documented. The description reinforces the 100-disc minimum and mentions add-ons in the output, but adds no meaning to antiMetalCount beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('the binding quote for a prospective order'), names its alias get_pricing, and enumerates the exact contents of the quote. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_product, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either 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?

It gives the trigger condition ('when the person names a quantity and wants the exact price'), the exclusion with an alternative ('for product facts without a quantity, call get_product instead'), and the downstream sequence (get_artwork_spec, then start_order_intent). This is close to ideal routing guidance.

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