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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful input-contract details, notably that all eight checklist entries must be included and that unknown costs should be null rather than assumed zero, but it does not describe the return value or calculation behavior.

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 focused sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no wasted wording. The follow-up sentence adds a concrete input rule without bloating the text.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description should explain what result is returned, but it does not. It does cover important input constraints, yet leaves gaps around machineId and how the computed setup cost is presented.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate more. It repeats the null-versus-zero rule already present in the cost schema and does not explain machineId or the included boolean, leaving key parameter meaning undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: add a machine quote and accessory costs in one currency. It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling calculators such as calculate_maker_price or compare_machines.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The implied use case is calculating a total laser setup cost, but the description never says when to choose this tool over the other calculate_* siblings.

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