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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the operation is free, that it produces a .txt download link valid for one hour, and what content the summary includes. These are useful operational details not captured in readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint. It could say more about permissions or link regeneration behavior, but the added context is solid.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The purpose, output contents, link expiry, cost, and PDF alternative are all front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden for explaining return values, and it does mention the summary contents and the expiring download link. The fully documented parameters and annotations cover the rest. A minor gap is the absence of error behavior (e.g., invalid quote id) and whether greeting/sign_off appear in the output, but the description is otherwise complete for this tool's complexity.

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%, and the schema fully documents id, greeting, and sign_off (including defaults). The description does not add meaning about parameter effects or formatting beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a quote into a plain-text summary to paste into an email.' It enumerates the summary contents (line table, VAT lines, total, validity date) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the PDF sibling: 'quote_pdf writes the A4 document.' An agent can immediately tell what it produces and how it differs from the other quote tools.

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('to paste into an email') and names the alternative for a different format ('quote_pdf writes the A4 document'). It does not state explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, but the plain-text versus A4 distinction is sufficient to route the agent correctly.

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