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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, not destructive). The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the coordinate frame (+x right, +y up, inches), what a blocked result contains and why, that amounts are CAD cents with HST listed separately, that prices are firm until expires_at, and that preview_url is the drawing to show the person.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then geometry conventions, then result semantics, then the ordering hand-off — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long, and a few sentences pack multiple constraints, but every sentence carries information.

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 eight parameters, deep nested schemas and no output schema, the description carries the response contract itself: blocked-with-issue, CAD cents, separate HST, expires_at, and preview_url. Combined with the ordering disclaimer, an agent has everything needed to call it, interpret the result, and route the user to checkout.

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?

Top-level parameters (material, thickness_in, quantity, quantity_options, label) carry no schema descriptions, so the description has to compensate: it fixes inches everywhere, pins quantity to 1-999, limits quantity_options to five quantities, and requires material/thickness to match list_materials exactly. The nested hole/bend/outline variants are already well documented in the schema, so the description adds most of its value at the top level.

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 and resource — pricing one laser-cut flat plate with holes, slots and bends at a firm price — and names the engine behind it. It also separates itself from siblings by pointing to list_materials for material/thickness values and create_handoff_link for ordering, so an agent can tell it apart from quote_product without opening either 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 concrete usage conditions: material and thickness_in must be exactly as list_materials returns them, and nothing is bought here so ordering must go through create_handoff_link. It also prescribes the recovery loop for a blocked part. It does not explicitly contrast with quote_product, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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