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 description correctly reinforces 'does not write to accounting systems' without contradiction. It adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining the workflow is 'review-gated,' which informs the agent about an approval step not otherwise visible in the structured metadata.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main action, and the second adds key behavioral context. The 'or' ambiguity slightly reduces clarity, but the text is well-sized and free of fluff.

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 tool with 13 parameters, nested objects, and low schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what inputs are needed, what the output document represents, or how the review gate works. While the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the agent still lacks enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

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 13 parameters and several nested objects, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It does not mention any parameter, input relationship, or how fields like line, lines, query, bridge, approval, or progress_pct should be used. The tooling has essentially no useful parameter guidance.

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 says the tool 'Prepare[s] an OCE Estimator/Appraiser document or QBO handoff contract,' which gives a general verb and resource, but the disjunctive 'or' makes the exact deliverable ambiguous. It does not clearly state that this is a progress-invoice estimation tool, nor does it differentiate it from siblings like estimator_estimate_convert_to_invoice or estimator_estimate_export.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description mentions it is review-gated and non-writing, but there is no indication of which scenario requires this tool rather than estimator_estimate_convert_to_invoice, estimator_estimate_export, or estimator_estimate_create_draft.

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