accept_quote

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

Annotations only flag destructive/non-idempotent/open-world; the description goes much further by disclosing the financial consequence ('MOVES MONEY') and who is billed ('DoorDash to your developer account'), plus the human-confirmation requirement. This is precisely the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 short blocks with the money-spending warning front-loaded, then one line per parameter. No filler, and the most consequential fact is first.

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 two-parameter spend action with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, prerequisite, billing consequence, and both parameter meanings. It stops short of saying what happens to a previously scheduled quote or what the response returns, but nothing critical to 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 description coverage is 0% (bare 'integer'/'string' titles), so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines external_delivery_id as 'the ID you quoted with' and specifies that tip is expressed in cents and can override the quoted value. Minor gap: it does not state the tip's default behavior when omitted, though the schema default of null hints at it.

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 ('Accept a quote from get_delivery_quote') and immediately differentiates it from siblings by contrasting with quoting: it 'dispatches a real Dasher' rather than returning a price. An agent can distinguish it from get_delivery_quote and dispatch_delivery without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit precondition for use: 'call only after the user has explicitly confirmed the quoted fee and ETA', plus the requirement that the quote originate from get_delivery_quote. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs for an irreversible spend action.

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