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

The price disclosure ("Fixed price $0.30 per call") is genuine added value the annotations do not carry, and it usefully explains why readOnlyHint is false despite this being an analysis operation. The description still does not say what a "gap" is, how documents are processed, or whether results are cached/returned inline, but the cost-transparency contribution is substantive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the price, with no filler. The closing sentence is largely a restatement of the first and could be dropped in favor of the missing document-format guidance.

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 should clarify the return shape — is it one summary block per document, and what constitutes a "gap"? It also leaves the document input format undefined. The cost line is a helpful start, but for a paid, non-read-only analysis call this is only minimally sufficient.

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?

There is one required parameter, `documents`, at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not the accepted format (raw text, file paths, base64, URLs), not how many are allowed, not whether suppliers map one-to-one to array entries. With only one parameter there was ample room to compensate, and it did not.

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 (summarise) plus a resource (each supplier quote) and a second action (flag gaps), which is clear enough to distinguish it from fikra_generate_procurement_report or fikra_extract_purchase_order. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close sibling fikra_compare_quotations, which an agent would plausibly reach for instead.

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?

"A quick read of what each supplier is actually offering" implies a lightweight, per-quote orientation pass, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling comparison/analysis tools. Usage must be inferred from the name and the hint of "quick."

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