Estimate accepting proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing.' Beyond that, it usefully discloses the computation itself — which proposal sets are totalled and that the result is compared to wallet balance — which the 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?

A single well-constructed sentence, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the described computation and the no-op guarantee. Dense but every clause carries information; no padding.

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 correctly explains what the result contains (total versus wallet balance). The only gap is the unexplained required `id` and whether the estimate is returned as a structured breakdown, but the core is complete enough 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 50%: `accept` is already documented in the schema and the description's phrasing ('the proposed ones named in accept') merely restates it. The required `id` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to infer it is the campaign id.

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: it estimates the cost of accepting managed-service campaign proposals by totalling accepted-awaiting-order plus proposed items and comparing against wallet balance. This is clearly distinct from growwer_estimate_order or growwer_get_managed_service_proposals_summary, though it never names those neighbors as alternatives.

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?

'Use this when the user considers accepting proposals' gives a clear trigger condition that implies this is a pre-flight check before the actual accept action. It doesn't mention which sibling to consult first (e.g. review_managed_service_proposals) or when-not to use it, so no exclusion guidance.

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