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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully reinforces this with 'Nothing is saved' and adds non-obvious behavior: the returned shape (product, quantity, unit price) and the no-args discovery mode. It stops short of noting rate limits or what happens when a measurement field is missing.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the no-save caveat and discovery trick placed after. 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by sketching the return value (line items of product, quantity, unit price) and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. Nested-object semantics and failure modes for bad template_id or unknown measurement fields are not addressed, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema's terse 'field → number' by giving a concrete measurements example and explaining that omitting measurements reveals the template's field set. waste_pct is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable since the schema documents it as an override.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Price a job with a published estimate template') and states what it produces ('the line items... the template produces'). It is clearly distinct from sibling list_estimate_templates, though it never names an alternative outright, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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?

It gives a concrete operational guideline: 'Call without measurements to see which fields the template uses,' which tells the agent how to discover required inputs. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over siblings like find_quotes or preview_proposal, so it stops at clear context without exclusions.

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