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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the lockout policy and states that successful confirmation forwards the request. However, it does not describe potential error cases or the response format, which would enhance transparency.

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 relatively concise, with the key information front-loaded. The bilingual content adds some length, but each sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more streamlined by removing the Hungarian, but it's still efficient.

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, the description should ideally explain return values or success/failure indicators. It covers lockout behavior but lacks information on what the agent should expect after successful confirmation or in case of errors. Somewhat incomplete for a crucial step.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that leadId comes from request_quote response and code from user email, but this is already in the schema descriptions. No additional parameter semantics 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 explicitly states it is the second step of request_quote, redeeming a 6-digit code to confirm. The verb 'confirm' and resource 'quote' are clear, and it distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., request_quote is the first step, get_price_estimate and list_inventory are unrelated).

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?

The description gives clear when-to-use: after request_quote. It instructs to ask the user for the code, warns against guessing or trying codes, and mentions the lockout after 5 wrong attempts. This provides explicit usage context and constraints.

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