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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: it discloses the return artifact ('bảng markdown sẵn để gửi khách') and that the total is spelled out in words, which tells the agent the output is a finished document rather than structured data. It does not state rounding or total-reconciliation behavior, so it stops short of 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the return format. The Vietnamese and English sentences are largely duplicative, which costs a little, but the duplication is defensible for a Vietnamese-market tool and nothing else is wasted.

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 6-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, covered domains and the return format, which is what an agent needs to select and call it. Missing are the constraints the schema holds silently (VAT allowed values, payment percentages summing to 100, 100-item cap), which the description could have surfaced but does not.

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 83%, so the schema already documents vat_rate, unit_price, valid_days, payment_schedule and the party names. The description restates the parameter concepts (line items, discounts, VAT, milestones) but adds no new syntax, default, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: it builds a Vietnamese quotation ('Lập khung báo giá tiếng Việt') and enumerates the substance it covers (line items, quantity, unit price, discount, VAT, payment milestones, amount in words). The second sentence distinguishes it from the calculator siblings by naming the concrete output artifact, a markdown table ready to send to the customer.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when a customer-facing quote document is wanted rather than a bare number. There is no explicit when-not to use it (e.g., versus calculate_vat or calculate_selling_price for single computations), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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