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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful domain behavior beyond that: volume tiers at 50+/100+, MOQ flagging, shipping exclusion, and that final quotations come from Tarigri. It does not describe external-system interaction implied by openWorldHint, but the added domain context is substantial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core computation and followed by the key exclusions and final-quotation context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler wording.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description provides the essential domain rules (tiers, MOQ, shipping exclusion, final quotation by Tarigri) but does not clarify external pricing-system behavior implied by openWorldHint or any edge cases around invalid SKUs.

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?

The context signals 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies that items are SKUs and quantities and explains quantity-based volume tiers and MOQ flagging, but it does not describe the nested object structure, the maximum of 50 items, or the SKU format example beyond what the schema itself shows.

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?

States a specific verb (compute) and resource (indicative wholesale price) with clear scope: SKUs, quantities, volume tiers, MOQ flagging, shipping exclusion, and final quotation handled elsewhere. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like search_products or draft_inquiry without opening any schema.

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 implies use for indicative pricing and notes it excludes shipping and that Tarigri issues the final quotation, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_inquiry or search_products. Usage is implied rather than stated with clear when/when-not guidance.

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