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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe transformation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the output is 'stateless' and the tool 'flag[s] hidden or missing costs,' which tells the agent what kind of result to expect beyond the schema. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and outcome. It is concise and readable, though it could add a brief note about required inputs without becoming verbose.

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 transformation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'preflight quote passport' contains and what 'hidden or missing costs' means. The annotations cover safety, and the sibling names hint at the workflow, but the description alone is not fully sufficient for an agent to know exactly what inputs are needed and what the output will look like.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'one user-supplied supplier quote' and 'hidden or missing costs,' which loosely maps to the quote fields, but it does not explain key parameters like unit_price, quantity, origin_country, destination_country, or how currency/incoterm interact. With 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a clear gap.

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 ('Normalize') and resource ('one user-supplied supplier quote into a stateless preflight quote passport'), and adds a distinctive outcome ('flag hidden or missing costs'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compare_preflight_quotes or trade_preflight.

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 this is the entry point for processing a single supplier quote before comparison or preflight checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. The sibling names suggest a workflow (normalize → compare → check requirements), but the description leaves that inference to the agent.

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