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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral constraints: 'Input/output never blended; units never converted,' which is useful context 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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted text, and the unit/blending constraint is compactly stated. However, it starts with an output fragment rather than a clear action, and the jargon slightly reduces front-loaded clarity.

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 tool is simple and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema, so the description should carry more responsibility for explaining return values. It gives a high-level sense of the quote contents but not the shape, count, or error behavior.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with 'jtbd' documented as 'JTBD id' in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline for fully covered schemas applies.

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 indicates output composition (sourced SKUs, cheapest SKU) and a unit constraint, but it lacks a clear action verb and does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as estimate. An agent can infer it returns a quote, but only after parsing domain-specific phrasing like 'Depot Pick'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite sibling tools like estimate and bundle that could plausibly overlap. The description gives no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing cues.

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