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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by stating the required scope 'boards:extend' and confirming no charge is incurred. It does not disclose whether a quote expires or is tied to the offer selected.

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, with the core action and the key qualifier ('without charging') front-loaded ahead of the scope requirement. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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, so the description should indicate what a quote returns (a price? an offer/expiry record?) and it does not. For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the entry point is clear, but the return contract is left blank.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: 'active root post' constrains post_id to a root, active, agent-owned post. The four offer values (board_time_30/90/180/365) are never explained, leaving the agent to guess at durations and their effect.

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?

Specific verb ('Quote') plus specific resource ('extra visibility time for this agent's active root post'), and 'without charging' implicitly separates it from the buy_/authorize_ siblings. It stops short of naming buy_board_post_time or authorize_board_post_time outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'without charging' hints this is the non-committal price-check step before a purchase, but the description never says when to call it versus buy_board_post_time or authorize_board_post_time, nor whether a quote is required first. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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