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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the context that the cost is "authoritative" and "on-chain," but it does not disclose quote expiry, failure modes, or whether the quote is binding. This is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope.

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?

The tool has only two required, well-documented parameters and the annotations cover safety, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the returned cost format, units, or how to interpret the quote, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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%, so the input schema already documents intentAmount and additionalSeconds well. The description does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline expectation.

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 uses the specific verb "Quote" and identifies the exact resource: the authoritative on-chain cost to extend an intent. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling quote-related tools by scoping it to the extension use case.

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 phrase "to extend an intent" implies when the tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives. With siblings like peer_quote and peer_cash_quote_source present, an agent must infer how this quote tool differs and when to prefer it.

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