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

With readOnlyHint=true already signaling a safe read, the description adds useful behavioral context: the quote is short-lived, non-binding, CAD-denominated, sourced from current sales data, and not the final checkout step. It does not describe return fields or rate limits.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and key qualities of the quote, and the second clarifies the checkout boundary. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the quote's nature and checkout boundary, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves productRef and billingCycle behavior undocumented, which is a meaningful gap 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain productRef format, accepted product references, or billingCycle semantics. The parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive and the enum is visible in the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return a quote for a current DotMoose product, with CAD currency and non-binding status. It implicitly distinguishes itself from product-listing and domain-quoting siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate them.

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 note that final tax and payment occur in first-party checkout implies this tool is for pre-checkout quoting rather than purchase completion. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_public_products, recommend_product, or start_signup.

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