Record the shopper's approval of a quote

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool writes only the local quote record, never contacts a store or spends money, enumerates the possible outcomes, and warns that product/store/merchant text is untrusted data that must not be followed. This is exactly the kind of safety-critical context annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and default behavior, and nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint or safety rule. It is dense and long for a single paragraph, but the length is justified by the approval-policy and prompt-injection caveats rather than 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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return outcomes (approved, needs_approval, quote_used, quote_not_found, viewed), the summary fields, the policy branch, and the safety boundary, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: relayed_yes must only be true after an explicit shopper yes, view is never an approval, and view cannot be combined with relayed_yes. That combination constraint is a semantic rule not present in the schema.

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 pair (check/record) plus the resource (a quote) and names the source of quote_id (quote_purchase). It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by noting buy_quote does the spending 'next', so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: set relayed_yes ONLY after an explicit in-conversation yes for that exact total, never on the agent's own judgement, ask again per quote, and under a person-level policy redirect to `portage approve` in the terminal. It also names the alternative tool (buy_quote) and the escape hatch (view).

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