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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces read-only behavior. It adds the useful fact that the operation is free, which is not present in the annotations. The alias nature also transparently signals that behavior matches field_agent_payment_quote, providing useful context beyond structured metadata.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: it states the alias relationship first, then the key cost and mutability traits. Every word contributes to the caller's decision, and there is no filler or redundant parameter repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only alias with a full schema and output schema, the description covers the critical extra facts: it is free and equivalent to field_agent_payment_quote. It could be more explicit about preferring the canonical name, but nothing essential about safely invoking the tool is missing.

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 100%: task_id is described as the 'Nexus task id to price for the matching AlpineLead Field Agent.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no compensation is needed.

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 title 'Field Agents: get payment quote' and the tool name clearly indicate that this tool retrieves a payment quote for a field agent task. The description clarifies that it is a compatibility alias for field_agent_payment_quote, which helps distinguish it from other payment-related siblings like check_field_agent_payment and fund_field_agent_task. It does not fully state the domain action itself, relying partly on the canonical tool's name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Calling this tool a 'compatibility alias' implies it exists for callers needing the old name or backward compatibility, and that field_agent_payment_quote is the canonical equivalent. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the canonical sibling or when not to use it, leaving the routing logic mostly to inference.

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