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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'Nothing is saved, and it makes no quote document' — closing the natural worry that 'generate' produces a persisted quote. It stops short of disclosing error behavior or product-list availability assumptions, so not a 5.

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 with no filler, and the core operation leads. The measurement example and discovery instruction are packed into one clause each, which is efficient though the sentence carries two distinct ideas that could be split for scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return contract by naming the line-item fields and the template-derived origin of pricing. Combined with the provenance and no-persistence caveats, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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% and template_id is undocumented there; the description compensates by requiring it come from list_estimate_templates. It also enriches the vague schema description 'field → number' with a concrete example map ({roof_area_m2: 120, pitch_deg: 30}) and explains the discovery mode ('call without measurements'), which the schema cannot express.

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 ('Price a job with a published estimate template') and names the exact artifact it consumes (a template from list_estimate_templates) plus the return shape (product, quantity, unit price). An agent can distinguish this from list_estimate_templates, generate_document, and find_quotes without opening any schema.

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 preconditions and alternatives: 'Only works with a template from list_estimate_templates' routes the agent to the enumeration tool first, and 'Call without measurements to see which fields the template uses' tells the agent how to discover required inputs. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use terrain are covered.

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