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 tenant scoping and the generic control-plane contract context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as how operations are selected or what side effects might occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It quickly establishes the scope and resource. The phrase 'generic estimator_* control-plane contract' is jargon, but the overall length is appropriate.

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?

This is a complex tool with 13 optional parameters, additionalProperties allowed, and no required fields, yet the description gives no operation semantics or payload guidance. The output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, but the description is insufficient for an agent to know how to construct a valid request.

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%, and the description does not compensate for the 13 undocumented parameters. It mentions 'tenant-scoped' and 'catalog sources/items,' which loosely relate to tenant_id and line/lines, but it provides no meaning for query, bridge, format, source_id, document_id, estimate_id, progress_pct, or idempotency_key.

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 names the resource (tenant-scoped OCE Estimator/Appraiser catalog sources/items, including StackFast storefront catalog), but the verb 'operate' is generic and does not specify whether this lists, creates, updates, or deletes. It is not a tautology, but it does not give the agent a precise action to expect.

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?

The description gives domain context but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention estimator_catalog_search or any other sibling, nor does it state conditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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