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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing that no consumer data is returned, that orderNumber appears only when accepted, and that images/storePortfolio are store-supplied response artifacts. It does not cover behavior for an unknown or expired quoteId, which limits it to a 4.

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 and status purpose, then the field inventory, then the display instruction — every clause carries information. The parenthetical field list is dense but efficient; minor repetition of 'orçamento' is the only waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden and does: it names each field, explains the conditional orderNumber, and interprets images and storePortfolio. Combined with the privacy note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents 'quoteId (de request_quote)' at 100% coverage. The description's restatement of the request_quote origin adds no syntax, format, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so the 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 precisely that it returns the status of a quote created by request_quote and enumerates the returned payload (status, items/prices, deliveryFee, total, validUntil, storeNote, closeReason, conditional orderNumber). This clearly separates it from request_quote (creation) and respond_to_quote (decision) without needing the schemas opened.

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 'orçamento pedido com request_quote' ties the tool to a specific lifecycle step, making its usage context clear, and it adds an explicit downstream action ('show both to the customer before they decide'). It stops short of explicit exclusions such as when to prefer get_offers or get_store_portfolio for other browsing needs.

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