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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete consequences beyond the annotations: 'Nothing is saved and nobody is notified'. It also explains the pricing mechanism (customer rates applied to stops and pieces) and that the order is returned with the quoted amount. It does not say what happens when no rate is available or how failures surface, so it stops short of 5.

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 core distinction ('WITHOUT creating it') is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences each add a distinct fact: the pricing mechanism, the required inputs, and the absence of side effects. Nothing is redundant; the trailing 'QuoteOrder.' is the only non-essential token.

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?

With 9 parameters, full schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required inputs, and side effects adequately. It lacks detail on quote validity, failure modes when no rate exists, or how the returned quoted amount is structured, which would matter for correctly consuming the result.

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% and every property, including nested stop and piece fields, is documented in the schema. The description only restates the essentials ('a customer code, pickup/delivery stops and optional pieces') and omits parameters that materially affect a quote, notably 'service', so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Price and availability for a delivery WITHOUT creating it'. This immediately separates it from every sibling, which are all get_/list_ retrieval tools, and makes clear it is a dry-run pricing call rather than a booking call.

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?

Usage context is explicit — use this when you want a quote and do not want an order created. It gives no explicit 'use X instead' routing (no create/book sibling is present in the list to point at), so it falls short of a full 5, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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