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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the return is customer pricing only, with vendor cost excluded, and access requires the phone/email on the request — beyond what the annotations convey.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and contents, followed by requirements and scope caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 handling return structure, annotations covering safety, and 100% schema description coverage, the description only needed to add purpose, prerequisites, and the vendor-cost exclusion — all present. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not encode: that the phone or email used on the request is needed alongside the required serviceRequestId, implying an either/or lookup requirement rather than a single required key.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (customer-facing quote for an existing Detritus request) and enumerates the returned contents: totals, price breakdown by product type, and quote link. This clearly separates it from make_service_request (which creates the request) and the status/availability siblings, which return different artifacts.

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 clear precondition context — the quote is for an *existing* request, and serviceRequestId plus the phone or email used on that request are required. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g. vs check_service_request_status), so it stops short of a 5.

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