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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds transparency by noting that the estimate is 'instant' and 'indicative and non-binding,' which is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool creates a request or has side effects, nor does it mention prerequisites or rate limits.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, list outputs, and add an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits how to specify the part geometry (e.g., CAD reference vs. bounding box), what 'assumptions' might include, and any error or qualification conditions. The tool is complex and would benefit from more detail.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the eight parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema fields, leaving the agent to guess the significance of parameters like bounding_box_mm, tolerance_mm, or cad_reference.

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 clearly states the tool's function as getting an instant cost estimate for a custom manufactured part, and lists specific outputs (unit price, total, lead time, assumptions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lead_time (which focuses only on lead time) and refine_quote (which implies a later step).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as estimate_bom or get_lead_time. It only implies the tool is for cost estimation, without stating prerequisites, exclusions, or why to choose it over siblings.

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