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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the platform fee (0.5%, min $0.01 USDC), the fact that no funds move, and the returned artifact (payment intent for EIP-712 signature). Minor omissions like expiry/TTL of the quote.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it creates, followed by the return artifact and the safety/cost reassurance. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 a 9-parameter schema at full description coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema for return values, the description supplies the essential missing pieces (fee, no-fund-movement, signature-readiness). Only quote validity/expiry and idempotency semantics are left implicit.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema fully documents each field; baseline 3 applies. The description adds fee context but no additional per-parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create an ... payment quote') and what it produces ('a payment intent ready for the payer's EIP-712 signature'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings authorize_payment/submit_payment/verify_payment, though the quote-vs-execute distinction is fairly self-evident.

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?

'Free: quoting never moves funds' implies this is the safe pre-step before signing/submitting, which lets an agent infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use authorize_payment once the quote is signed).

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