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

Beyond annotations (which only mark it non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the cost model ('Spends credits ... charges the quoted credits, never more'), the consent requirement, the 10-minute quote expiry, and the single-run constraint. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the most consequential fact ('Spends credits'), and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational constraint (charge cap, consent, expiry/one-shot). 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: cost, consent gating, quote provenance, expiry, and single execution. Nothing required to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'quote.quoteId from search_nyc_signals.' The description corroborates the quote-origin linkage but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the NYC signal rows') and ties it to the mechanism that produces them ('from a quote made by search_nyc_signals'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling search_/quote_/run_ tools without the agent needing to open any 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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite for calling ('tell the user how many credits it costs and get their go-ahead') and identifies search_nyc_signals as the source of the required quote, so the agent knows the precondition flow. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over re-quoting or other run_ siblings, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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