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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint true/false, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags: 'Purely a calculation — nothing is saved', plus how equationId tests non-live versions without persisting anything. No contradictions or hidden side effects are disclosed.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, equationId testing workflow, no-side-effects guarantee, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or repetition of the input schema.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, how to test equations, that nothing is persisted, and which sibling handles the existing-order case. With 100% schema parameter coverage handling the field details, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns higher by adding semantics for equationId (non-live version from save(entity=typescriptEquation), comparison workflow) and variables ('Changes the equation's inputs, never its formula'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's field-level text, especially for the trickier parameters.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Price a part configuration on demand and return the price breakdown plus the pricing-equation variables.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from explainPrice by positioning generateQuote for un-ordered parts or hypothetical changes, not existing order lines.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use for a part not yet ordered, or to test a change'), a concrete test procedure (call once with equationId and once without to compare against live), and names the sibling alternative for the opposite case: 'To explain the price of an EXISTING order line, use explainPrice instead.'

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