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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'never a single committed number' and clarifies what the response includes (line items, next steps). This adds value without redundancy.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence frontloads the purpose, the second explains return value and behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on behavioral aspects like 'published price range' and 'never a single committed number'. It covers key constraints (e.g., what the quote includes) but could mention prerequisites like the required service parameter, though the schema already indicates it's required.

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 50% (as provided), meaning the description should compensate for missing parameter explanations. However, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions return behavior. The schema itself provides decent property descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Use this when a user asks what Arc & Ledger charges, or wants a price estimate' for specific services. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like estimate_quarterly_taxes and book_consultation by focusing exclusively on Arc & Ledger's fixed-fee quotes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (user asks for charges/estimates) and what it returns (price range, not a single number). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling context provides differentiation, and the usage context is clearly implied.

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