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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'without changing the estimate' largely restates structured data. The added value is the scope disclaimer about what the check does not certify, but nothing is said about what the check reports back (e.g. flags per line, zero-rate thresholds), and an output schema covers return values.

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, front-loaded with what is checked and followed by the limitation; nothing is padded. Slight redundancy between 'without changing the estimate' and the readOnlyHint annotation costs it a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a tool whose only input is a structured line-item array with a meaningful enum, the description leaves the caller without guidance on how to shape that input.

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% for a single nested 'items' array whose line objects carry required fields and a scopeStatus enum. The description never mentions the per-line structure or explains how 'unresolved scope' maps to scopeStatus values, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 ('Checks') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: line completeness, unresolved scope, and zero rates. The phrase 'without changing the estimate' separates it from write-side siblings such as save_estimate_draft, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a negative boundary ('does not establish construction scope completeness or readiness to quote'), which tells the agent when the result is insufficient, but offers no positive trigger for when to call it and names no alternative tool for the broader readiness question.

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