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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: a fixed price of $0.50 per call. It does not disclose the output shape, whether the report is persisted, or any failure modes for mixed/incompatible documents.

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 with the core action and the cost up front. The final sentence is a sentence fragment that adds little beyond the first, but nothing is padded or buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not describe the report's contents or format. Combined with the undefined required 'documents' parameter, an agent cannot reliably assemble a valid call from this definition alone.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the burden falls on the description, and it does not compensate. The required 'documents' array has no description in the schema and the description never says what the items should be (document IDs, file contents, extracted text) or whether quotes and POs must be supplied together.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Combine') and resources ('quotes and POs') with the output artifact named ('decision-ready report'), which separates it from siblings like fikra_compare_purchase_orders and fikra_analyse_supplier_quotes. The trailing fragment 'Presenting a sourcing decision with the numbers and the caveats' restates purpose rather than extending it, and it does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces.

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?

'Presenting a sourcing decision with the numbers and the caveats' gestures at the use case (sourcing decisions) but never states when to pick this over fikra_compare_purchase_orders, fikra_analyse_supplier_quotes, or fikra_generate_business_report. The need to supply quotes AND POs together is implied but not called out as a precondition.

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