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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the quote is expressed in USD and, importantly, that video streaming and background image generation draw on separate Genesis budgets, which steers the agent away from treating one quote as total cost.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus the non-starting constraint are front-loaded. Each sentence carries distinct information (what it quotes, and the budget caveat).

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what the quote actually returns (line items, validity window, or whether it ties to get_balance). It also omits prerequisites for quoting against a character. The budget caveat helps, but the definition is only minimally sufficient for a 3-required-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It contributes only indirectly — 'bounded' maps to maxSessionSeconds and 'USD' clarifies the output unit — while workspaceId and characterId are left to self-explanatory naming and schema patterns.

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 (quote), resource (live avatar session), and unit (USD), and the phrase 'without starting it' implicitly separates it from start_live_avatar_session. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing rather than read it directly.

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?

The only usage signal is the negative statement that no session is started, which implies this is a cost-preview step before start_live_avatar_session. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether the avatar must exist or be prepared), and no named alternative.

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