Create an estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the price-resolution logic (custom price overrides catalog) and the rule for constructing flat-rate line items. It still doesn't say what the tool returns or whether the estimate is sent to the customer, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the pricing rules. No filler and each sentence earns its place, though the pricing elaboration could be slightly tighter.

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 create tool with 7 fully-documented params and no output schema, the description covers the tricky pricing decision logic well. It leaves gaps around the customer-resolution flow and what the tool returns, but those are partly handled by the schema (createNewCustomer) and are not strictly required.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds concrete usage examples for lineItems/unitPrice ('total $250', 'charge $300 flat') and the single-line-item convention for flat rates, which meaningfully extends what the schema states about the same fields.

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: 'Create an estimate/quote for a customer.' This is unambiguous against the read siblings (get_estimates) and other create siblings (create_job, create_invoice). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those create siblings, 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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for the pricing path: use a custom unitPrice when a flat rate/custom price is stated, and only fall back to catalog pricing when no price is given. It does not, however, say when to choose create_estimate over create_job or create_invoice, so it lacks the alternative-tool routing a 5 would require.

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