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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about tenant scoping and the estimator_* control-plane contract, but 'Operate on' still leaves the actual behavior ambiguous. No direct contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is a single short sentence but is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It spends words on generic phrases like 'Operate on' and 'through the generic estimator_* control-plane contract' without delivering actionable purpose or usage information.

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?

Given the high complexity—13 parameters, nested objects, sparse schema descriptions, and many sibling tools—the description is far from complete. It lacks a clear operation, invocation criteria, and parameter semantics, so even the presence of an output schema and annotations cannot make this definition sufficient for reliable use.

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 only 15%, with most of the 13 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain what line, lines, query, bridge, format, approval, source_id, document_id, estimate_id, progress_pct, or idempotency_key mean in this contract, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 is vague: 'Operate on tenant-scoped OCE Estimator/Appraiser catalog sources/items' uses a generic verb and never states that this is a search/lookup behavior despite the tool name. It does not distinguish the tool from sibling estimator_catalog_sources, so an agent cannot tell what specific action is being exposed.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as estimator_catalog_sources, estimator_policy_check, or other estimator_* siblings. No use case, exclusions, or preferred invocation context is described, so the agent must guess.

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