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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether this tool reserves budget, creates a commitment, is read-only, or requires approval. The phrase 'signed quote bound to budget' is ambiguous about side effects.

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 sentence with no fluff, so it is concise in structure. However, it omits essential information and relies on vague phrases, making it less useful than its brevity might suggest.

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—13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and many sibling tools—this description is far too sparse for an agent to invoke it correctly or understand its place in the broader workflow.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 2 required, none are explained. Key fields like capability_code, usage_permissions, candidate_output, required_responses, target_reliability, and max_latency_seconds are completely opaque, and schema coverage is 0%.

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 states that the tool returns a free signed quote, but 'bound to the complete task, capability, rights, and budget' is vague and does not clarify what a 'public quote' is or how it differs from sibling tools like me_quote.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus me_quote, me_compare, me_approval, or other related tools. There are no scenarios, conditions, or exclusions provided.

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