Accept a quote

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: what the call actually sends, that no funds move at this step, the validation-refusal rule, and the rate-deviation acknowledgement gate with its >10% threshold.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the step number and the highest-value clarification (nothing is paid yet), followed by eligibility and the gating condition. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, yet nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing: pipeline position (step 3), state prerequisite, failure behavior, the acknowledgement flag path, and the human-escalation requirement are all stated.

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% and the description's explanation of acknowledge_rate_deviation ('strong rate deviation or could not be checked') largely restates the schema text. The >10% threshold is the only genuinely additive detail, so this sits at the baseline the schema already earns.

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 quoted order') and immediately clarifies the material consequence: a signed acceptance is sent but nothing is paid yet, with fund_order named as the tool that pays. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like request_quote, fund_order, and cancel_order.

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?

Explicit preconditions ('Only for status quoted'), explicit failure routing ('A quote that failed validation is refused'), and an explicit escalation rule ('ask your human first' before acknowledge_rate_deviation). When-to-use, when-it-fails, and who-to-ask are all covered.

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