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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructiveness, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful context that the tool preflights all shards, times a pilot, and quotes credits/ETA, but it omits failure modes, side effects, and what preflight actually validates.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the phrase 'corrected search family' is jargon-heavy and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

The tool has a large nested schema with numerous contract fields and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It leaves key required inputs and the quote-vs-submit workflow unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent to call confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps to the shards concept and candidate count. It does not explain the required vertical enum, the idempotency_key, or the shard structure and constraints.

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 specific actions (preflight, time a pilot, quote credits and ETA) and a clear resource scope (private feature shards and up to 1,000 candidates). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling quoting tools like quote_audit or quote_repair, which keeps it below 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus quote_audit, quote_repair, or preflight_dataset. The only constraint-like information is a candidate limit, not a usage rule or prerequisite.

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