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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the quote is deterministic, based on public/non-private metadata, and must not include a script or brief. Those are useful behavioral constraints not present in 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key exclusion, so every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 11 parameters, 7 required fields, and very low schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers privacy and determinism but leaves required inputs, enum meanings, and constraints undocumented. The existing output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input contract remains inadequately explained.

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 only 18% for 11 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It mentions no specific fields, enums, required values, or constraints; only the generic phrase 'project metadata' appears.

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+resource: calculate a deterministic public quote. It clarifies the input domain as non-private project metadata, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools such as create/get/list. It does not explicitly name or compare alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit exclusion — 'Do not send a script or brief' — and implies the correct input is project metadata. However, it does not say when to choose this over sibling tools like shoot_plan_timing or shoot_plan_create, leaving usage partly inferred.

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