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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that no prices are returned and that the quotation is handled offline, but it omits whether the link is generated server-side, any auth/permission requirements, and whether calling it has side effects or persists anything.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the return value front-loaded and the pricing caveat immediately 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?

For a link-builder with no output schema, the description explains what comes back (the contact page link) and why prices are absent, which is the key expectation to set. It is nearly complete, missing only operational details such as link validity or reuse behavior.

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 100%, so all four parameters (skus, intent, market, quantity) are already documented in the schema, including the enum and max/min bounds. The description only references SKUs and intent and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (Return) and resource (contact page link) with scope detail: SKUs and inquiry intent are prefilled. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_product or search_products, though it never names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied rather than stated: the note that prices are not published and the quotation follows the buyer's request tells the agent this is the path for a buyer seeking a quote. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to any sibling tool.

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