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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: computed cents fields from live lines, an effective_status that can be 'expired' even when stored status is not, conditional tax_summary output, and NOT_FOUND behavior with id-discovery alternatives. This is exactly the kind of value-add expected beyond 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary return behavior, then derived fields, then error guidance. No sentence is redundant, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 compensates by explaining the key return fields and their semantics, including computed values, effective_status derivation, conditional tax_summary, and error handling. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'id', and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add syntax or format details for the id beyond saying it can be found via quote_list or quote_search; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Returns one quote') and immediately distinguishes it from list/search siblings by emphasizing a single quote and its computed fields. The added details about derived subtotal/tax/total and effective_status make the tool's distinct purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance for the failure case: 'find the id with quote_list or quote_search.' That is useful routing, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer quote_read over those siblings in the success path, leaving some inference to the agent.

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