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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns a deep link, requires user review and manual publish, does not auto-post, and requires authentication. It also clarifies that acceptance and payment never happen in chat. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to know, and it aligns with the idempotentHint annotation.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the deep-link workflow, and finally states the critical no-auto-post and authentication caveats. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the output (deep link), the workflow (user reviews and publishes), and authentication, which is good. However, with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, it lacks field-level guidance such as accepted date formats, currency codes, or how to map user input to budget fields. It is adequate for understanding the tool's role but not fully complete for reliable 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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not explain any of the eight parameters. It only says 'all fields pre-filled' and 'from the user's description,' which gives a general sense but leaves urgency, budget_min/max, preferred_date, currency, and location_name undefined. The agent would have to infer semantics from field names alone.

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: 'Compose a Tewdy quote request from the user's description.' It also clearly distinguishes this from posting by noting it 'deliberately does not auto-post' and returns a deep link for the user to review and publish. This separates it from siblings like submit_quote and accept_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: this tool is for composing a quote request and returning a deep link, not for final posting. It says quote acceptance and payment confirmation happen on tewdy.com, which implies when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state 'use submit_quote instead,' so it falls just short of full explicit routing.

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