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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, yet the description adds real value: newest-first ordering, the 200 cap, that total_cents is integer cents, that effective_status can read 'expired', and the VALIDATION_ERROR contract with a concrete remedy. It stops short of describing the full row shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 the resource, ordering and cap, then paging, then error recovery — no filler sentences. The error clause is slightly dense but every element is actionable.

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 supplies ordering, page size, response-variant behavior and two field semantics, which is enough to call it correctly. It would be fully complete if it enumerated the remaining row fields.

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 100% and both parameters already document range, opacity, and the null-next_cursor terminator. The description restates the 200 limit and paging intent without adding format or syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource with ordering ("Lists your quotes, newest first") and a hard cap of 200. It doesn't name quote_search as the filtered alternative, so an agent must infer the sibling boundary, but the listing purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Explains when to pass limit/cursor versus omitting both for the legacy bare-array page, which is useful invocation guidance. However it never says when to choose this over quote_search or quote_read, leaving the sibling routing implicit.

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