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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new traits: the quote is short-lived (expires), non-binding, denominated in CAD, and sourced from live sales data. The exact TTL and rate limits are not stated, which is the only real gap.

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, zero filler, with the core result and the key caveat (non-binding, checkout elsewhere) front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should convey the returned shape; it says 'quote' and 'CAD' but not what fields come back or how long the quote lasts. For a simple two-param read tool it is adequate, but an agent still lacks the expiry window and productRef format needed to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about productRef (a slug pattern) or billingCycle (a six-value enum with monthly default). It only indirectly informs pricing semantics via 'CAD' and 'sales data', leaving both parameters undocumented outside the bare 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return a ... CAD quote' for a DotMoose product) and implies read-only quoting rather than purchasing. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool quote_domain, but the product scope is clear from both name and text.

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?

Usage is implied: 'non-binding' plus 'final tax and payment are completed in first-party checkout' signals this is an informational pricing call and that start_signup handles the actual purchase. There is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion statement, and no mention of quote_domain for domain pricing.

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