Quote paid TLS certificate

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it discloses that nothing is charged or ordered, that the catalog generation/identifiers/contacts/CSR are validated, the required permissions (paid operations, certificates:order, spend caps), and rules about the idempotencyKey and never supplying the private key. The readOnlyHint=false is consistent with quote creation rather than a 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then validation behavior, cost disclosure, safety warning, and prerequisites in a logical order. Dense but nearly every sentence carries actionable information; it is only marginally longer than strictly necessary.

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 complex, 11-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key return value (EUR total incl. VAT), safety constraints, auth requirements, and the idempotency contract. It stops short of describing other return fields, but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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 schema already fully documents all 11 parameters, including the idempotencyKey's dual use for the quote and order confirmation. The description reinforces the CSR/private-key constraint but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Create a short-lived quote') and resource ('one exact paid TLS certificate or eligible renewal'), and distinguishes the operation from ordering. An agent can tell it apart from order_certificate and list_certificates without opening a schema.

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 positions this as the step preceding order_certificate ('Disclose that exact total before order_certificate'), naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also notes renewal eligibility, so the scope of valid inputs is clear.

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