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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds the crucial non-obvious point that a POST endpoint is nevertheless side-effect free, plus per-method vs all-method shipping behavior, account-currency defaulting, and the CreatedWithIssues outcome for problematic items. The CreatedWithIssues disclosure comes close to return-value detail the missing output schema would normally carry, which is genuinely valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the most important constraint (pricing only, no charge) and dense with specifics. The second sentence is long and runs several requirements together, which slightly hurts scanability, but no sentence is filler.

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 no output schema, the description does real work by enumerating returned cost components and the CreatedWithIssues failure mode, and it clarifies required item fields. It remains silent on things like rate limits or whether quotes expire, which for a pricing endpoint an agent might reasonably want.

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 reinforces item composition ('sku, copies and the print areas', 'books take pageCount') and the omit-to-get-all-shipping behavior, but the latter is already stated in the schema's shipping_method description, so incremental value is modest.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Price a print order') and immediately scopes it against the obvious trap — it does not create or charge anything. The enumeration of what the quote contains (item cost, shipping, inserts, tax, total, carrier, lab, unit costs) makes the output shape unambiguous and distinguishes it from the order/product siblings.

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?

Clear context: use this to obtain pricing without side effects, and the POST /quotes note plus 'nothing is saved or billed' tells the agent when this is the right call versus creating an order. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g. 'do not use for final order totals — use prodigi_get_order'), so not a 5.

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