Quote public address renewal

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are non-contradictory and the description adds rich context beyond them: required scopes (networking:read/networking:manage, full/read defaults excluded), backend enforcement of ownership/feature/2FA locks, async semantics (in_progress, reason_code/reason_kind, waiting vs failure), transport-uncertainty handling, and no-charge behavior. This is far more than 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and nearly every following clause carries operational information (scopes, approval, polling, failure semantics). It is dense and somewhat repetitive around the idempotency key, but largely earns its length for a complex async mutation.

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?

No output schema and only two parameters, yet the description covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: permissions, approval, async polling with reason codes, failure vs waiting distinction, and non-retry guidance. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the same Idempotency-Key binds quote and confirmation, it must be reused unchanged on recovery, and the address must be an owned resource. These cross-call semantics are not derivable from the schema alone.

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: quoting the address's next month without charging, plus the quote/confirm mechanic. It distinguishes the quote step from the confirmation step ('use the returned quote and this key for confirmation'), though it does not explicitly name the sibling renew/confirm tool. Clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from ordering a new public address.

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?

Provides substantive workflow guidance: read capabilities/owned state first, obtain approval for the exact change, choose a supported live catalog tier, and poll the returned operation. It implies the quote-then-confirm sequence but does not explicitly name the confirm alternative, so the when-not boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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