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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output includes a .txt download link valid for one hour and notes that the tool is free, which covers the key temporal and cost-related behaviors an agent must know.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the core deliverable, the second adds the download link expiry, cost, and sibling alternative. Every phrase earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (email-ready summary content and an expiring download link) and differentiates it from quote_pdf. Minor omissions like error handling or exact naming conventions do not impede correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents id, greeting, and sign_off. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('turn a quote into a plain-text summary'), enumerates the output elements (line table, VAT lines, total, validity date), and explicitly contrasts with quote_pdf, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use it (when a paste-ready plain-text quote for email is needed) and names the alternative quote_pdf for A4 documents. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use', but the sibling comparison provides sufficient guidance.

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