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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the agent knows this writes state. The description adds substantial context beyond that: currency is CAD cents before HST with HST broken out separately, freight is excluded and quoted later, and no purchase occurs. It doesn't explain whether repeated calls create duplicate quote records, which is what non-idempotent implies, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: pricing behavior, currency, exclusions, then the ordering handoff. Every sentence carries information, though the final sentence chains several clauses and could be split for readability.

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 characterizes the return values (CAD cents, HST as its own figure, freight absent). The main gap is the undocumented label/quantity_options parameters, which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 carries the full burden and it partially delivers: it explains slug and tier sourcing, the orderable-tier constraint, and the 1-50 quantity range. However, it says nothing about the label or quantity_options parameters, leaving 2 of 5 parameters undocumented anywhere.

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+resource+scope: price a catalog product at its firm unit price, distinct from sibling quote_plate (plates) and get_quote (retrieving existing quotes). The opening clause makes it immediately distinguishable from other quoting tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where slug/tier come from (search_products), that only a tier marked orderable is valid, and routes ordering to create_handoff_link. It also states what this tool does NOT do (nothing is bought here), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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