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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral context: it returns ranked providers or listing price/trust snapshot, listing mode is anonymous, task mode requires auth, and how to provide the API key in different environments. This adds real value beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Each sentence adds distinct information: mode 1, mode 2, auth requirements. No fluff or repetition, making it easy to scan and parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 optional params, two modes, no output schema), the description provides enough context: it explains what each mode returns, how to choose modes, and the authentication nuance. Without an output schema, the description reasonably covers expected return shape via 'ranked providers' and 'listing-specific price, trust snapshot, and next-step guidance.'

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 parameters are individually documented. The description goes further by explaining how groups of parameters select different quote modes (task+constraints vs. capability_id/listing_id/slug), and highlights that task requires an API key. This semantic grouping adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't detail every parameter.

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 clearly states the purpose: create a router-aware quote, with two distinct modes (task-based provider ranking and listing-specific pricing). It provides specific verbs and resources, and the mode descriptions make the behavior concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like agoragentic_quote_service, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by mapping parameter combinations to modes: task+constraints for ranked providers, or capability_id/listing_id/slug for listing-specific quotes. It also clarifies auth requirements for each mode (anonymous vs. API key). It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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