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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely new behaviour: the atomic pricing guarantee ('if a job cannot be priced, nothing is saved'), the 30-day price lock, and the account/auth flow. It also discloses region and currency rules (Australia-only, AUD incl GST), which no annotation covers.

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 capability and the 20-line limit are front-loaded, and the atomicity and pricing-lock facts follow in priority order. The trailing Australia/GST and sign-in sentences are justified but make the block longer than it strictly needs to be for a save operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Against that, the description still supplies the auth prerequisite, the geographic restriction and the failure mode, which are exactly the gaps an agent would otherwise hit at call time.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents almost every field and the description only restates the shape ('each a product id and configuration'). It does add the 20-job cap and the intent of address_id, fulfilment, reference and notes, but that mostly repeats the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Saves a new quote') and immediately scopes it: up to 20 job lines, each a product id plus configuration priced by the engine. That is enough to distinguish it from update_quote, duplicate_quote and convert_quote_to_order without opening any schema.

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?

Names the downstream follow-ons explicitly (share_quote, email_quote, convert to an order) and states the prerequisite that the customer must be signed in, including what happens when they are not. It does not give an explicit 'use update_quote instead when...' exclusion, so it is strong context rather than a full routing decision.

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