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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful no-side-effect context: 'stores nothing and sends nothing' and 'the user completes the request on entogo.ca or by e-mail.' This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying that the tool only returns guidance and does not submit anything on the user's behalf. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the return content, the second clarifies the tool's side-effect-free handoff behavior. The most important scoping information ('request for quotation') is front-loaded.

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 simple, read-only handoff tool with two optional string params and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how the product parameter is used, the external destinations, and that no data is stored or sent. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and set user expectations.

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% for both optional string parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the product parameter populates the deep link ('pre-filled with the product name'), which is not specified in the schema. The summary parameter's role as pasted content is already covered in the schema, so no extra credit is needed there.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('the right channel for a request for quotation'), and enumerates exact outputs such as the transformer configurator deep link and contact details. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product or search_knowledge, which are about retrieving product/catalog information rather than handing off an RFQ.

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?

The phrase 'request for quotation (RFQ)' plus the title 'Hand off to Entogo for a quote' explicitly indicate the trigger condition: when a user wants a quote. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the RFQ framing provides clear context for when to select it.

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