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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this by adding 'Read-only' and elaborates on the returned content, which is useful context. However, it does not describe any behavioral nuances like error handling, rate limits, or the exact structure of the response. Given that annotations cover the core safety aspects, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add the usage context. There is zero redundancy or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (list of quoting details), when to use it (ambiguous requests), and its read-only nature. It does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., invalid service id) or response format details, but for an informational tool this is acceptable. The absence of an output schema makes the description's enumeration of return items important, and it fulfills that need.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description ('Service id from list_upholstery_services'). The tool description does not add any additional semantics about the parameter beyond implying it identifies a service. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns everything needed to quote one service' and enumerates the specific data types (unit, quantity limits, variants, optional add-ons, factual description). It also differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on quoting prerequisites rather than actual calculation (compare calculate_quote) or listing services (list_upholstery_services). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use it when the customer's request is ambiguous' with concrete examples (corner sofa size, carpet area). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context implies that for other cases (e.g., calculating a final price) a different tool would be appropriate. This is clear enough but lacks explicit exclusions.

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