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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces rather than repeats them by naming exactly what is not done: 'Sends nothing, reserves nothing and needs no contact details.' It also adds a real behavioral rule the annotations cannot express — totals are computed per currency and never summed across currencies.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the input-output transformation, then the currency rule, then the trigger condition. Every sentence carries information, though the WhatsApp/email and upload-URL detail could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the input shape, the artifact produced, the currency constraint, and the absence of side effects — everything an agent needs to decide to call it and to explain the result to a buyer.

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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it does: it explains that each line pairs an offer_id with cases, or units when the offer is priced per unit without a case size. The per-currency grouping rule adds semantics the schema lacks. Minor gap: mutual exclusivity of cases vs units is only implied by 'or'.

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?

States a concrete transformation: confirmed lines (offer_id + cases/units) become a quote request summary plus a CSV for the quote.akay.ie upload endpoint, with WhatsApp/email alternatives. This is a specific verb+resource that no sibling (fetch, get_price, search_offers, price_my_list) could be confused with.

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?

Gives explicit trigger language — 'whenever the buyer says they want a quote, an order or to buy' — and sequencing advice, 'offer it after showing prices', which implies get_price/search_offers run first. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not condition, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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