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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-open-world, non-idempotent; the description adds valuable context beyond them: nothing is transmitted and the result carries an openUrl for the draft. It omits whether repeated calls create duplicate drafts, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded, with the prerequisite and side-effect called out immediately. The opening sentence largely echoes the title, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

For a mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers side effects, prerequisite flow, and the return's key field (openUrl). Only the duplicate-draft behavior is left unaddressed.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the nested line fields (btwRate defaults, unitPrice in EUR) and validUntil default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the 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?

"Create a draft quote" states a specific verb and resource, and "Nothing is sent" implicitly distinguishes it from send_quote in the sibling list. It never names the alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a clean sibling differentiation.

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 an explicit prerequisite ordering ("call lookup_contact first") and clarifies the non-sending scope, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming send_quote as the tool to use when the quote should actually go out.

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