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

Annotations are sparse: readOnlyHint=false (so mutation is expected), idempotentHint=false (so repeated calls may have different effects), and no destructive hint. The description adds key behavioral context: a fixed quote is returned within 24 hours, and it should be used after human confirmation, which prevents misuse. It does not detail side effects like whether submission creates a persistent record, but the description adds value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the key outcome and usage condition. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the purpose, the response time, and the prerequisite. It does not explain the return value (since no output schema), but that is optional. Given annotations are minimal, this description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the overall purpose (e.g., 'contact' is 'Email or WhatsApp number to reply to', which is in the schema). Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description doesn't need to re-explain parameters.

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 action ('File a project brief'), the subject ('on the client's behalf'), and the outcome ('Djaouad replies with a fixed quote within 24 hours'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on submitting a brief, not querying slots, pricing, profiles, or projects.

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 instruction 'Use after confirming scope with the human' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool, which is a strong usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though siblings like get_pricing might be relevant for quotes—this is implied but not stated.

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