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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so 'Read-only' is redundant, but 'no demand or payment created' adds genuinely new domain-specific context that the annotations cannot express in a quoting/marketplace tool. It is a real value-add, though it stops short of describing what the quote contains or whether it reserves 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 with zero filler; the core action and the two lookup keys are front-loaded before the safety note. Nothing 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 9-parameter tool with nested economics/return_path objects and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it neither explains the parameters nor what a 'quote' returns. An agent can invoke it with a capability_id, but cannot use any of the other eight parameters correctly from this text alone.

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 0% across 9 parameters, and several (client, inputs, output, urgency, economics, freshness, return_path) are nested objects with entirely undocumented semantics. The description only gestures at capability_id and the intent (the 'task' param), leaving the economics and return-path fields, which are the highest-risk ones, unexplained.

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+resource ('Find and quote a registered capability') and names the two lookup keys, capability_id or an exact supported intent. It is distinguishable in spirit from list_capabilities and next_best_capability, but it never names those siblings or explains how the lookup modes differ.

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 phrase 'using its capability_id or an exact supported intent' implies when this tool applies (you already know the target), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus list_capabilities, next_best_capability, or preflight_capability. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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