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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior) by disclosing the irreversible side effect of creating a real order and declining all other quotes. It also reveals the payment protection mechanism, including that money is held by Agoria until customer confirmation and that a payment link is returned, providing crucial behavioral context.

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 compact, using only two sentences to convey the purpose, side effects, and payment flow without redundancy. It front-loads the core action and then adds the necessary context.

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 description covers the critical behavioral aspects: real order creation, decline of others, and the payment link procedure, which are essential for correct tool invocation. Minor gaps exist regarding error conditions or explicit prerequisites, but these are partially inferred from the schema (briefToken from request_quotes).

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 descriptions cover both parameters (briefToken and slug) with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter details. The description does not elaborate further on the parameters themselves, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Choose a business's quote') and its consequence ('creates a real order... declines the others'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_quotes and request_quotes. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 context that this tool is for accepting a quote after comparing options, and it gives an actionable follow-up instruction ('hand that link to the customer'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the context strongly implies using it after request_quotes/compare_quotes.

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