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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is met structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: no contact to other buyers, no signature, invoice, automatic purchase or payment, and the implicit auth requirement of a buyer-authorized budget. It stops short of describing what the qualification actually returns (fit verdict, reason, recommended tier), which is the remaining 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?

Front-loaded with the 'Use when' trigger, then routing rules, then constraints, then an example — a sensible order. The middle sentence is heavily packed with three conditional branches, making it the densest part, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers trigger, tier conditions, side-effect boundaries and an invocation example for a 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations. With no output schema, the one thing an agent cannot infer is the shape of the qualification result, which the description leaves implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing semantics in context with the example payload {goal:'reconcile agent seller payment ledger receipts',max_spend_usd:250,workspaces:1}, illustrating how goal and workspaces drive tier selection.

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?

Specific verb+resource with routing logic baked in: it matches a buyer workload to named tiers ($149.90 Command Center, $999.90 Tower, prepaid credits) under stated conditions. An agent can tell this apart from quote_premium_workload or quote_premium_delivery because the description positions it as the qualifier that precedes the free 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?

Explicit entry condition ('Use when you have a real buyer-authorized budget and a concrete agent workflow') plus hard exclusions ('Tower ONLY with confirmed multiple workspaces', 'prepaid credits ONLY with lower total declared cash cost') and an ordering rule ('Always use the free input quote first'). This is when/when-not/alternative guidance in full.

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