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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which the description's 'Store a quote' aligns with, so there is no contradiction. The description adds value by disclosing the return payload (Q number, VAT, totals), shared-profile sourcing of currency/VAT/issuer, duplicate refusal, and the 5-open free-tier cap. However, the wrong MAJOR-units claim actively misdiscloses behavior and undermines transparency.

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?

Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the constraints (duplicate refusal, 5-open limit, shared-profile defaults) stated efficiently. Only the erroneous unit sentence fails to earn its place, otherwise the description is tight and well-structured.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return values, defaults sourcing, and failure conditions, which is reasonably complete. It lacks details on error behavior and authentication, and the unit contradiction is a real completeness gap that could cause incorrect tool 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 coverage is 100% with excellent parameter documentation (e.g., unit_price_minor '9000 = 90.00 EUR... Never a decimal'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add value here; it actively harms by asserting unit_price is in MAJOR units, contradicting the schema's MINOR-unit definition for the same field. This negative contribution pulls the score below baseline.

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 a clear verb+resource ('Store a quote... return its Q number, VAT and totals') and distinguishes itself from siblings like quote_update, quote_get, and quote_list by focusing on creation with an output. However, it muddies the purpose by claiming 'unit_price is in MAJOR units' when the actual parameter unit_price_minor is in MINOR units per the schema, which could mislead an agent.

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 provides useful usage constraints ('A duplicate of an open quote is refused. Free: 5 open.') that tell an agent when creation may fail, but it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or exclusions. Sibling differentiation is left entirely to tool names rather than the description.

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