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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: snapshot semantics ('exactly as it was priced'), the expired status condition, and a 30-day post-expiry retention window. It stops short of describing response shape or error behavior (e.g., unknown id).

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 core action, then lifecycle rules. The opening clause 'Get a quote quote_plate or quote_product made' is grammatically awkward and takes a second read, which is the only waste.

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, so the description has to hint at returns; it does so by calling out the status and expires_at fields and retention. Missing details on the quote's payload and error cases, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description carries the burden. It says only 'by its id', adding no format, length, or sourcing details beyond the schema's maxLength 64. Minimum viable for a single required identifier.

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?

'Get a quote ... made by its id, exactly as it was priced' names a specific verb and resource and clarifies that this is retrieval, not creation. It explicitly ties the resource to the siblings that create it (quote_plate / quote_product), so an agent can distinguish this read tool from the quote-producing ones without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use and a concrete follow-up rule: once status reads expired past expires_at, ask for a new quote. It does not name an alternative retrieval path or state when not to call it, but for a single-purpose fetch tool the routing guidance is clear.

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