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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a real obligation, requires explicit authorization, and constrains the caller (never negotiates, pays, or substitutes). This gives agents essential insight into side effects and safety requirements, though it doesn't detail the exact response format or error conditions, which would be nice but isn't critical given the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and action types. Every clause adds value: the obligation warning, the required fields, the constraints, and the follow-up purchase pointer. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (13 params, 7 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential decision factors: what it does, when to use it, what's required, and what happens next. It doesn't detail every parameter, but the schema handles that at 77% coverage. The only gap is no mention of verification or status siblings, but that's not necessary for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 77%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds contextual meaning by tying authorized, customer_name, customer_callback_phone, and max_price_minor to the 'real obligation' concept, and clarifies that max_price_minor is a ceiling (never negotiates). This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, providing valuable integration context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: getting a free price to arrange something at a US local business, listing the four specific actions (book, hold, request_quote, cancel). It also implicitly differentiates from siblings by mentioning the follow-up purchase tool, so an agent can distinguish this from get_verification_* and purchase_quote.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to get a quote before purchase) and explicitly points to purchase_quote as the next step. It also states critical usage constraints like needing explicit authorization and the caller's name/number. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond purchase_quote, so it lacks formal exclusions.

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