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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the billing model (spends credits, charged per firm returned, capped at the quote), the zero-result cost ('No firms found costs nothing'), and the quote lifecycle (single-use, expires after 10 minutes). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before committing the user to spend.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the cost implication ('Spends credits'), and every sentence carries distinct information — cost model, return payload, failure cost, precondition, quote expiry. No 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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, output schema present), so return-format detail is not needed from the description. Combined with the annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers cost, precondition, expiry, and result shape — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single quote_id parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top by explaining where the quote comes from, that it is single-use, and that it expires in 10 minutes — semantics the schema does not convey.

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 ('Runs a quote from quote_investor_firm_search') and enumerates exactly what is returned (business phones, emails, website, key people). It names the sibling tool that produces the quote, so an agent can distinguish it from quote_investor_firm_search and the other run_* tools 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 a clear gating condition — 'Call only after the user agreed to the quoted cost' — plus the implicit prerequisite that a quote from quote_investor_firm_search must exist first. It stops short of explicitly ruling out the parallel run_active_investor_search / run_national_property_search siblings, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing rule.

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