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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it declares the response excludes personal data and explains the semantics of links.order (only set once the recipient confirmed), which is behavioral context an agent can't get from the 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 short sentences with no filler, and the returned-fields summary is front-loaded ahead of the links.order caveat. The closing clause is slightly cryptic in isolation (what object is links.order part of?) but earns its place as return-shape detail.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (status, items, validity, links.order) and the privacy boundary, which is the information the schema can't supply. Missing minor items: not-found/error behavior and whether the ID is the quote's public identifier.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description should carry the load; it only says 'by id' and leaves the required format (Q- followed by 24 hex chars, enforced by the schema pattern) unmentioned. The pattern mitigates this, keeping it at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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 resource and the three things it returns (status, items, validity) plus a scoping detail (no personal data), so the agent knows exactly what to expect back. It doesn't name or differentiate itself from any sibling (create_quote, request_enterprise_quote), though none of those are read operations, so confusion risk is low.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is keyed by a quote id, so it is clearly a lookup after a quote exists, and the links.order note hints at post-confirmation polling. There's no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no stated alternative, and no mention of what happens for an unknown id.

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