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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive; description adds that it 'only inspects' and details the return content (route requirements, enabled services, missing fields, next questions), providing rich behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with usage instruction and clear listing of return items.

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 presence of output schema, the description still covers purpose, usage, and key return elements. For a simple tool with one parameter and supportive annotations, this is complete.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of the single 'draft' parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 tool inspects a quote draft and returns specific requirements, with a verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like quote_generate and quote_update_draft.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('when checking before generation') and implies read-only, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond sibling listing.

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