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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds real value: results are indicative and rounded to 0.5%, there is no payment/charge, and it scopes itself to falcon.sol structures. It doesn't say whether the quote is deterministic for a given seed or how stale it can be, which keeps it below a 5.

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 compact sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The bracketed trailing tag "[falcon.sol structures. Free, no payment.]" is slightly noisy but still carries information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and a fully documented nested schema, the description covers the essentials: what is computed, that results are rounded and indicative, and what artifacts come back. The only real gap is the missing explicit contrast with `price_note`.

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 single `termSheet` parameter already carries a pointer to /schema/term-sheet.json plus a full worked example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the general domain (falcon.sol structures) and mentions which fields the output derives from, not parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and enumerates the outputs: an indicative quote with fair coupon/participation, probabilities and a payoff diagram. It's clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling `price_note`, so an agent must infer the preview-vs-price distinction on its own.

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?

"Free indicative quote" and "Free, no payment" imply this is the no-cost, non-binding path taken before a firm price, but no alternative (e.g. `price_note`) is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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