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

Annotations flag it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the url is bearer-access (anyone holding it can open the page) and no payment is processed through this server. It does not mention that repeat calls likely produce distinct links, which is relevant for a non-idempotent tool.

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?

The core action and its output (hand the buyer the url) are front-loaded in the first two clauses, followed by limits and the security caveat. It is a long conversational sentence, but almost every clause adds a constraint rather than 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 usefully states the return (a url to give the person) and covers preconditions, scope limits, and the no-payment caveat. It leaves open what happens on repeated calls and whether any auth scoping applies to the created page.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: quote ids must be ready and unexpired, count 1-10, and cover at most ten items in aggregate — semantics the bare array schema (minItems 1, maxItems 10) does not convey. It still omits the expected id format, leaving a minor gap.

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 description states a concrete verb and resource: it builds a single ordering page on steadysteel.org from quoted items, with per-item buttons into the plate quoter or product order page. An agent can tell it produces an order link rather than an RFQ link, though it never explicitly names create_rfq_link as the sibling it differs from.

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 is given: use it with one to ten quote ids that are ready and unexpired, then hand the url to the buyer. The precondition that quotes must be ready and unexpired is genuinely useful gating, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_rfq_link or what to do with an expired quote.

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