Quote a workflow run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing cost behavior ('without spending credits', 'Free'), the returned artifact ('quote_id'), its lifecycle ('expires'), and its binding semantics ('binds the exact revision and semantic input'). It does not state auth requirements or what happens on expiry/consumption of the quote.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and cost guarantee, then the returns, then the quote_id contract. 'without spending credits' and 'Free and read-only' are mildly redundant, but nothing else is wasted.

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, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does name the two key outputs (price, warnings) plus the quote_id. An agent can call this correctly, though it must guess how the quote_id is consumed downstream and how long the quote remains valid.

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% for the single plan_id parameter, so the schema gives only a pattern (^wfp_...) with no prose. The description compensates partially by implying the id must refer to an approved current plan, but it adds no format, source, or validity detail beyond that. Baseline 3 for a one-parameter tool where the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Quote the approved current plan') and scopes it to a precondition (plan must be approved). It implicitly separates itself from the paid launch step, but it does not distinguish itself from the other quote_* siblings (quote_candidate, quote_revision, quote_ugc), which an agent must resolve from the name alone.

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?

'Show the native price and every warning before requesting a paid launch' gives a clear condition for when to call it, and 'the approved current plan' establishes the prerequisite state. However, no alternative tool is named (e.g. run_workflow_plan) and no when-not case is stated, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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