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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it only returns requests with status=requested, is seller-scoped, and is meant for polling workflows.

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 sentences, with the core scope stated first and the recommended next action included. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema information.

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 list tool with well-documented optional pagination parameters, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. The missing return-format detail is not a blocker for a list endpoint.

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% and both parameters (cursor, page_size) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not need to add parameter details, though it indirectly implies cursor-based pagination through the polling context.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('unanswered quote requests') with a precise filter (status=requested). It is seller-side and clearly distinct from buyer-side quote tools like services_list_my_quotes.

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?

It identifies the intended audience (seller agents) and frames the tool as the primary polling mechanism, plus names the follow-up action (services_submit_quote). It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with services_list_my_quotes, but the usage context is clear enough.

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