Request a quote from a proxy shopper

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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), which is typical for a create operation, and the description does not contradict them. It adds real behavioral value: signed/encrypted Nostr order request, address encrypted end-to-end with escrow able to read only in a dispute, 'nothing is paid', and the timeout behavior (order stays open).

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 the action and the key selection rule, then the behavioral disclosure, then the return summary and next steps. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long, though no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers what is returned (order id, price breakdown, rate deviation, recomputed 2-of-3 escrow address, timelocks T1/T2) and what happens on timeout, plus the follow-up tool. Nothing material is missing for a 9-parameter flow tool.

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 cross-call semantics the schema cannot: offer_index must reference the last find_offers result with the same shop_url/region/payment, and shopper+escrow are the alternative to offer_index. It does not restate field formats, which the schema already handles.

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 and resource ('create an order', 'request a quote') with scope ('one shopper × escrow combination') and explicitly frames itself as 'Step 2' of the flow. It distinguishes itself from find_offers, accept_quote and cancel_order by name.

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 routing: offer_index must come from the last find_offers with matching shop_url, region and payment, or supply both shopper and escrow pubkeys instead. It names the next alternatives (accept_quote or cancel_order) and the fallback (get_order) if no quote arrives.

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