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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the return contents (line items, unit prices, line totals, grand total, desk contact details) and implies this is a calculation rather than a submission. It does not explicitly state that no order is created or discuss side effects, but the 'Returns...' phrasing strongly signals a read-only pricing operation.

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 tight sentences: front-loaded verb and resource, then return summary, then routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool produces, when to use it, and when not to use it. It could additionally specify whether quantities must be positive integers or whether tax/shipping is included, but nothing essential to invoking the tool 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 100%: the only parameter 'items' and its nested slug/quantity fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds context by calling it a 'wholesale quote' and 'straightforward priced list', but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Build'), a resource ('wholesale quote'), and the exact inputs ('list of product slugs and quantities'). It also distinguishes itself from get_live_quote, making its scope immediately clear to an agent choosing between siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('straightforward priced list') and explicitly names the alternative condition ('when a destination ZIP or an event date changes the answer, use get_live_quote instead'). This gives concrete selection criteria with no inference required.

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