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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is non-destructive; the description adds important behavior beyond that. It explains the asynchronous quote preparation, that the quote is emailed with a payment link, and that the agent must poll get_request on a schedule rather than in a loop.

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 three dense sentences and no wasted text. The core action, asynchronous behavior, polling warning, and next steps are all stated efficiently.

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?

The description explains the asynchronous workflow and next tools well, which matters because there is no output schema. However, with five parameters and zero schema description coverage, it does not provide enough parameter context for fully reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only clarifies sample_id and revision. It leaves request_id, request_capability, and idempotency_key unexplained despite being required for invocation.

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: confirm the current immutable sample_id and revision and request a fixed quote. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling confirm_quote tool.

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 workflow guidance: the quote is prepared asynchronously, check get_request on a schedule and never in a loop, and after the final quote use start_order or create_order. It names alternatives for the next step but does not state when to choose confirm_scope over confirm_quote.

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