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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with the strong 'NEVER submits' guarantee and adds a non-obvious behavioral requirement (surface the summary and get explicit user confirmation). What is missing is any hint about what the preview contains or whether validation errors can occur.

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 the purpose and followed by the critical constraint. Every clause carries operational weight – nothing is redundant.

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 preview tool with no output schema, the description mentions that a 'returned summary' exists and must be shown to the user, which partially compensates. But with 12 undocumented parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on how to populate the boq structure or when to supply design_id/calculator_id, so the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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?

There are 12 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, yet the description says nothing about any of them. The phrase 'from an engineering design/BOQ' loosely hints at the boq parameter, but required fields like customer_name, phone, city, product, quantity, and the optionals design_id, calculator_id, assumptions and warnings are entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Prepare a Taminyaran RFQ preview') plus the input source ('from an engineering design/BOQ'). It is immediately differentiable from the sibling submit_quote_request, which the description names as the follow-on step.

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?

Explicitly defines the workflow boundary: 'This tool NEVER submits. Show the returned summary to the user and obtain explicit confirmation before calling submit_quote_request.' This tells the agent when to use this tool, when to stop, and which alternative to use next.

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