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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the behavioral trait that no data (quote, supplier, user, D1) is stored, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It also implies the comparison is in-memory, but could be more explicit about the output or side effects, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint (2 to 5 quotes). It then adds a note about not storing data. This is concise and every part 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent the allowed input count and that no data is stored. However, the description doesn't explain what the comparison returns or how the result is presented, which could be important for an agent. Since the schema provides no output details, a complete description should mention that.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema only says 'quotes' is an array of objects with min/max items. The description adds meaning by specifying that exactly 2 to 5 quotes are compared, which clarifies the count constraint. Since the parameter 'quotes' is vague on its own, the description compensates somewhat, but it could provide more detail on the expected structure of each quote object.

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 the tool compares quotes, with a clear constraint on the number (2 to 5). It clearly indicates the action and resource, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'trade_preflight' or 'normalize_supplier_quote', so it loses one point.

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 implies usage context: it should be used when comparing quotes, and the constraint on count is explicit. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'trade_preflight', so it falls short of a 5.

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